BV  811  .D32  1870 
Dale,  James  W.  1812-11 
Judaic  baptism 


1. 


AN    INaUIRY    "^^^o-:,! 


THE    USAGE    OF    BAIITIZH, 


AND   THE  NATURE  OF 


JUDAIC  BAPTISM, 


AS  SHOWN   B^? 


JEWISH    AND   PATEISTIC    WEITINGS. 


JAMES  W.  DALE,   D.D., 

PASTOR   OF   THE   MEDIA    PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH,    DELAWARE   COUNTY,    ?A. 


BdnTtfffia  ijV  to  'loudaixov,  to  punwv  <Tuj[xarixciJv  aTtalMrrov,  ou  ruJv 
xazd  TO  (Tuvsidog  d/iapTrjiidzwy.  Chrtsostom. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

WM.    RUTTER    &    CO. 
187  0. 


"  The  real  difficulty  has  been,  not  that  the  subject  has  been  discussed  too 
much,  but  that  the  discussion  has  not  been  sufficiently  radical  and  exten- 
sive ;  that  much  very  important  evidence  has  been  sparingly  used,  if  used 
at  all."  ■  Beecher. 

"  If  I  speak  with  confident  boldness  from  my  own  conviction,  let  him 
contradict  still  more  boldly  whom  I  do  not  convince."  Stier. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  18C9, 

By   James   W.   Dale, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


CAXTON   PRESS  OF   BHERMAN  b  CO., 
FBILADELPUIA. 


GENERAL  VIEW  OF  CONTENTS. 


1. 

PAGE 

Criticisms  op  Classic  Baptism. 

By  The  Christian  Press,  The  National  Baptist,  The  Examiner  and 
Chronicle.,  The  New  Englander,  The  Keligious  Herald,  and  The 
Baptist  Quarterly,  stated  and  answered, 19-58 

2. 

Jewish  Writers. 

Josephus,  Philo,  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach, 61-128 

3. 

Old  Testament. 

As  interpreted  by  Patriots, 129-342 

4. 

Apocrypha. 

II  Maccabees  1:19-36;  Judith  12:7-9, 343-375 

5. 

New  Testament. 

Jewish  Baptisms, 377-388 

6. 

Josephus. 

Judaic  and  Johannic  Baptisms, 389-390 

7. 

Kesxjlts. 

1.  Material  for  judgment.  2.  Usage  of  Jew  and  Greek  harmonious. 
3.  Jewish  baptisms  not  dippings.  4.  The  theorists  made  apologists. 
5.  Classic  Baptism  confirmed.  6.  Appropriation — Ceremonial  puri- 
fication      391-400 


BAPTISMS  EXAMINED. 


JEWISH  WRITEKS. 

Condition  of  Intusposition  and  Condition  "without  Inttsposition. 


Baptized,  sword.     Jewish  War,  ii,  18,    . 
ship.     Life  of  Josephus,  §  3,    . 
"        Jew.  Ant.,  ix,  10, 
"  "  iii,  9,  . 

drowned.      "  iii,  10, 

killed.  "  iii,  10, 

drowned.      "  xv,  3,  . 

"  "  i   22     .         . 

ship.  "  iii.  8,  . 

"         Jewish  War,  ii,  20, 
killed.  "  i,  27, 

city,  Jotapata.     Jewish  War,  iii,  7 
"      Jerusalem.  "  iv,  3 

reason.     Philo, 
made  drunk.     Philo, 

"  Jew.  Ant.,  X,  9, 

stupefied.  "  iv,  4, 

purified  ceremonially.     Sirach,  34:30, 
John's  and  Jewish.     Jew.  Ant.,  xviii,  6, 


PAGE 

61 
64 
64 
64 
65 
65 
66 
66 
69 
71 
74 
76 
78 
83 
84 
92 
100 
112 


Old  Testament. 


20. 

Baptism 

of  the  waters 

chang 

e  of 

condition 

Gen.  1:2, 

.     134 

21. 

of  a  fountain. 

" 

Ex.  15  :  23-25, 

.     143 

22. 

by  deluge, 

" 

Gen.  6  :  13,      . 

.     148 

23. 

of  Naaman, 

<( 

11  Kings,  5:14, 

.     154 

24. 

by  Bethesda, 

" 

John  5:4, 

.     164 

25. 

by  washing, 

" 

Levit.  15:5,    . 

.     169 

26. 

'1 

" 

Ezck.  10  :  4,  9, 

.     172 

27. 

by  pouring  an 

d  sprinklin 

g,  change 

of 

28. 


by  washing  hands  and  feet,  change  of 

condition,  Ex.  40  :  30-33, 
by  .sprinkling,  change  of  condition,  Levit.  14:4-7, 
by  washing  and  sprinkling,  change  of 

condition,  Ps.  51 :  2,  7,     . 


195 


175 

184 


(  iv  ) 


BAPTISMS    EXAMINED. 


PAGE 

31. 

Baptism  by  circumcision,  < 

hange  o 

f  condition 

Joshua  5:  3,  9, 

206 

32. 

"        by  drops  of  blood 

u 

" 

Exod.  12  :  7,  12,  13 

216 

33. 

"         by  flaming  sword 

,   " 

" 

Gen.  3  :  24,      . 

222 

34. 

"         by  a  coal  of  fire, 

" 

" 

Isaiah  6:  5-7, 

239 

35. 

"         by  water,  spirit, 

and  fire 

,  change  of 

condition 

Isaiah  4:  4,      . 

248 

36. 

"         ofironandbysins 

change 

ofcondition 

,  II  Kings  6  :  5,  G, 

251 

37. 

''         by  pollution, 

" 

" 

Job  9:  30,  31, 

268 

38. 

"         by  suffering, 

" 

" 

Ps.  69:1,2,     . 

272 

39. 

"         by  sincerity. 

" 

" 

Cant.  5:12,     . 

274 

40. 

"         by  repentance, 

" 

" 

Isaiah  1  :  16,  17, 

277 

41. 

"         by  iniquity. 

" 

" 

Isaiah  21:  4,  . 

284 

42. 

"         by  sea  and  cloud, 

" 

" 

Ex.  14:19,31, 

289 

43. 

"         into  Moses, 

" 

*' 

1  Cor.  10:2,  . 

305 

44. 

"         by  the  Jordan, 

" 

" 

II  Kings  2:8, 

315 

45. 

"        into  Joshua, 

" 

" 

Josh.  3:16,  17, 

320 

46. 

"        by  pouring. 

" 

" 

I  Kings  18:32, 

328 

Apocrypha. 

47.  Baptism  by  sprinkling,  change  of  condition,     II  Mace.  1  :  19-36,     346 

48.  "         by  spring  water,    "  "  Judith  12 :  5-9,       .     352 

New  Testament. 

49.  Baptisms,  diverse  baptisms,  change  ofcondition.  Heb.  9:9,  10,         .     379 

Kesults. 


BAPTISMS   OF  JOSEPHUS,  PHILO,  A^D  SON  OF 
SIRACH,  CLASSIFIED. 


1, 

Inttjsposition  wiTnouT  Influence. 

PAGE 

He  mersed  the  entire  sword  into  his  throat."      .         .        JosEPHtrs,      61 


Intusposition  with  Influence 


Vessel  mersed  in  the  Adriatic. 
Vessel  on  the  point  of  being  mersed. 
Billow,  rising  above,  mersed  them. 
Mersed  with  their  vessels. 
Mersed,  rising  to  the  surface. 


JoSEPHUS,         63 

63 
63 
63 
63 


Intusposition  for  Influence. 

Pressing  down  and  mersing  until  they  drowned  him. 
Mersed  in  the  pool  he  died.     ...... 

Mersed  his  ship  voluntarily 


JOSEPHUS, 


Figure  Grounded  in  Destructive  Mersion. 

Swam  away  from  the  city  as  from  a  mersed  ship.  .         .        Josephus, 
As  a  last  storm  mersed  the  young  men.  ...  " 


SECONDARY   USE. 


1. 

Baptism  without  Mersion. 

He  would  baptize  the  city 

Who  baptized  the  city 

Reason  baptized  by  things  coming  upon  it.    . 

(  vi  ) 


Josephus,      76 

76 

Philo,       76 


BAPTISMS   CLASSIFIED. 


ra 


Appropriation. 
Before  they  become  ihoroughly  drunk  (baptized).  . 


PAGE 

Philo,      84 


Verbal  Figure. 
Baptized  by  drunkenness  into  insensibility.   . 


JosEPHxrs,      92 


Ceremonial  Purification. 

Baptizing  by  heifer  ashes,  they  sprinkled  it.          .         .        Joseph  us,     100 
Baptized  from  the  dead Son  of  Sirach,    112 


BAPTISMS  OF  SCRIPTURE  AXD  APOCRYPHA. 

AGENCIES   AND    CHANGES    OF   CONDITION. 


WATEK  BAPTISMS. 

■WATER    ITSELF    BAPTIZED. 

A  New  Quality  Imparted. 

PAOB 

The  Spirit  moved  upon  the  waters, 134 

The  pool  of  Myrrha  made  sweet, 143 

Baptism  by  Water. 
Special  Influence  Exerted. 

Deluge,  purging  the  world, 148 

Jordan,  healing  the  leprosy, 154 

Bethesda,  curative  of  any  disease, 164 

Applied  to  the  Body,  more  or  less. 

General  washing, 169 

u  u 172 

Part  of  the  body,  hands,  and  feet, 175 

Pouring  and  Sprinkling. 

Leviticus  14 :  4-7, 184 

Psalm  51  :  2,  7, 186 

Ezekiel  36 :  25,  26, 195 

Baptism  by  Blood. 

Circumcision, 206 

Blood  dropping  from  the  cross,       ........     216 

Baptism  by  Fire. 

Water,  Spirit,  and  Fire, 248 

Coal  of  Fire, 239 

Flaming  Sword,     ...........     222 

(  v'ii  ) 


BAPTISMS   OF   SCRIPTURE   AND   APOCRYPHA. 


Baptisms  Involving  Mental  and  Moral  Influence. 

PAGE 

Sins, 262 

Corruption, 262 

Trouble 262 

Faith, 262 

Kepentance, 277 

Iniquity, 284 

Baptism  and  Miracle. 

KedSea, 289 

Jordan  divided, 315 

Passage  of  the  Jordan, 320 

Altar  of  Carmel, 328 

Temple  fire  rekindled, 345 

Baptisms  Ceremonially  Purifying. 

Baptism  from  heathen  camp, 352 

Baptism  from  diverse  defilements, 379 


Symbol  Baptism. 
Ceremonially  Purifying  Ba2)tism  a  Symbol  of  Spiritual  Purification. 
Judaic  and  Johannic  baptism  in  contact, 


PATEISTIC  mTERPRETERS. 


Genesis  1 :  2. 

PAGE 

TertuUian,    Didymus   Alexandrinus,    Ambrose,   Jerome,   and    Basil 

Magnus 134 

Exodus  15 :  23-25. 
Ambrose, 143 

Genesis  6: 13;  7:1,  18,  22. 
TertuUian,  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Basil,  Didymus  Alexandrinus,     .         .     148 

II  Kings  6  :  14. 
Septuagint,  Ambrose, 164 

John  5 : 4. 
Ambrose,  Didymus  Alexandrinus, 164 

Letiticus  15 :  5. 
Chrysostom,  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 169 

EzEKiEL  16  :  4,  9. 
Jerome. 172 

EzEKiEL  36  :  25,  26. 

Jerome,  Hilary,  Didymus  Alexandrinus,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Origen, 

Cyprian 196 

Exodus  40 :  30-33. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Origen,  Clemens  Alexandrinus 176 

Leviticus  14 : 4-7. 
Ambrose, 186 

(  X  ) 


PATRISTIC    INTERPRETERS.  XI 

Psalm  51  :  2,  7. 

FAQE 

Ambrose,  Cyril,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 186 

Joshua  5:3,  9. 
Justin  Martyr,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Cyril,  Origen,       ....    207 

Exodus  12:  7,  12,  13. 
Chrysostom,  Gregory  Nazienzen,  Theophylact,  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  .     21G 

Genesis  3  :  24. 
Ambrose,  Origen,  Basil, 222 

Isaiah  6 :  5-7. 
Ambrose,  Origen,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Eusebius,   ....     239 

Isaiah  4  :  4. 
Basil  Magnus, 248 

II  KiKGS  6  :  5,  6. 
Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  Irenceus,  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,         .        .     251 

Job  9:  30,  31. 
Aquila, 269 

Psalm  9 :  15. 
Jerome, 270 

Psalm  69  : 1,  2. 
Symmachus,  Jerome, 272 

Canticles  5 :  12. 
Ambrose, 274 

Isaiah  1 :  16,  17. 
Justin  Martyr,  Hippolytus,  Jerome, 277 

Isaiah  21 : 4. 
Septuagint, 284 

Exodus  14 :  19-31. 
Ambrose,  Basil  Magnus,  John  of  Damascus,  Didymus  Alexandrinus,     290 


Xll  PATRISTIC   INTERPRETERS. 

I  Cor.  10:2. 

PAGE 

Paul, 305 

II  Kings  2  :  8. 
Origen,  Cyril, 315 

Joshua  3  :  16,  17. 
Origen, 321 

I  Kings  18  :  32-38, 
Origen,  Basil  Magnus,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Ambrose,  .        .        .     328 

APOCKYPHA. 

II  Maccabees  1 :  19-36. 

Ambrose, 345 

Judith  12 :  5-9. 
Septuagint, 352 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Hebrews  9  :  9,  10. 

Hilary,  Ambrose,  Basil,  Chrysostom,  Justin  Martyr,  Gregory  Nazi- 

anzen, 379 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  AND  OF  THE 
APOCRYPHA  EXAMINED, 

WITH    THE    PAGE    WHERE    THEY    MAY   BE    FOUND. 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Genesis  1:2, 

.     134 

Psalm  9:15, 

.     270 

Genesis  3  :  24, 

222 

Psalm  51  :  2, 

.     187 

Genesis  6  :  13, 

.     148 

Psalm  69:  1, 

.     272 

Exodus  12  :  7, 

.     216 

Canticles  5 :  12, 

.     274 

Exodus  14 :  19, 

.     290 

Isaiah  1  :  16, 

.     277 

Exodus  15 :  23, 

.     143 

Isaiah  4 :  4, 

.     248 

Exodus  40 :  30, 

.     175 

Isaiah  6  :  5, 

.     239 

Leviticus  14  :  4, 

.     185 

Isaiah  21  :  4, 

.     284 

Leviticus  15:5, 

.     169 

Ezekiel  16  :  4, 

.     172 

Joshua  8  :  16, 

.     321 

Ezeldel  36  :  25, 

.     196 

Joshua  5:3, 

.     207 

John  5:4,. 

.     164 

I  Kings  18:32, 

.     328 

I  Cor.  10  :  2, 

.     305 

II  Kings  2  :  8, 

.     315 

Hebrews  9  :  9, 

.     379 

II  Kings  5  :  14, 

.     154 

II  Maccabees  1  : 

19,    .     245 

II  Kings  6  :  5, 

.     251 

Judith  12  :  5, 

.     352 

Job  9  :  30,    . 

.     269 

Sirach  34  :  30, 

.     112 

(  ^"i  ) 


AUTHORS  AND  WORKS  QUOTED. 


Ambrose, 
Anastasius, 
Aristeas, 
Aristophanes, 
Aristotle, 
Aquila, 

Baptist  Quarterly, 
Basil  Magnus, 
Beecher,  President, 
Bekker, 
Blair,  Dr., 
Bonfrcr, 
Booth, 
Buxtorf, 
Calvin,  John, 
Campbell,  Principal, 
Carson,  A.,  LL.D., 
Christian  Press, 
Chrysostom, 
Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
Clemens  Komanus, 
Conant,  Dr., 
Cox,  Dr., 
Cyprian, 

Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
Dagg,  Dr., 
Didymus,  Alex., 
Donnegan, 
Erotianus, 
Euscbius, 
Ewing,  Prof., 
Examiner  and  Chronicle, 
Fairbairn,  Principal, 
Franklin,  Dr.  Benjamin, 
FulkT,  Dr., 
(xiv) 


Furst, 

Gale,  Dr., 

Gesenius, 

Godwin,  Prof., 

Gregory  Nazianzen, 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus, 

Hamilton,  Sir  William, 

Halley,  President,  England, 

Hesiod, 

Hilary, 

Hippocrates, 

Hippolytus, 

Homer, 

Hudson,  Principal,  Oxford, 

Ingham  K.,  London, 

Irenasus, 

Jerome, 

John  of  Damascus, 

Josephus, 

Justin  Martyr, 

Kamcs,  Lord, 

Kendrick,  A.  C,  D.D., 

Kiihner, 

Lowcnthal,  Kev., 

Luc'ian, 

Matthics, 

Mcrcurialis, 

Mignc,  Abbe, 

Miller,  Rev.  Samuel,  D.D., 

Milton, 

Morrell, 

National  Baptist, 

Now  Englander, 

Nourry,  Alex.  D.  Le, 

Origen, 

Ovid, 


AUTHORS  AND  WORKS  QUOTED. 


XV 


Philo, 

Plato, 

Plutarch, 

Quintillian, 

Eeligious  Herald, 

Eipley,  Prof., 

Bosenmiiller, 

Scott,  Sir  Walter, 

Septuagint, 

Shakspeare, 

Son  of  Sivach, 

Smith,  Dr.  W., 

Stewart,  Kev.  Charles, 

Stourdza,  Alex,  de, 


Struzius, 

Stuart,  Professor, 

Symmachus, 

TertuUian, 

Theophylact, 

Tholuck,  Professor, 

Valesius, 

Webster,  Noah,  LL.D., 

Worcester,  Sam'l,  LL.D., 

Wilkinson,  Sir  J.  Gardner, 

Wilson,  Professor,  Belfast, 

Williams,  Kev.  Koger, 

Williams,  Dr.  Edward, 

Xenophon. 


JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 


(17) 


JUDAIC  BAPTISM 


CONSIDERED  IN  ITS  NATURE  AND  AS  ILLUSTRATIVE  OF  THE 
USAGE  OF 


B  A  n  T I  z  n. 


Judaic  Baptism  properly  denotes  a  baptism  which  is  dis- 
tinctively Jewish.  Under  this  title,  however,  will  be  intro- 
duced all  baptisms  of  whatever  kind  spoken  of  by  Jewish 
writers,  as  well  as  those  facts  and  observances  recorded  in  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  which  are  declared  by  Patristic  writers, 
to  be  baptisms. 

The  Apostle  Paul  speaks  of  a  baptism  connected  with  the 
miraculous  division  and  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  although 
there  is  no  such  verbal  statement  in  the  original  narrative. 
In  like  manner,  the  Patrists  speak  of  many  facts  in  the 
Jewish  history  and  of  many  ritual  observances  in  the  Jewish 
ceremonial  as  baptisms,  making  interpretation  not  of  words 
but  of  things.  This  course  of  Paul  and  of  Patrist  furnishes 
us  with  an  exceedingly  valuable  help  to  determine  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  word.  To  many  of  the  Patrists  the  Greek 
language  was  their  native  tongue.  The  use  of  a  Greek  word, 
by  them,  has  equal  authority  for  determining  its  meaning  as 
its  use  by  Plato  or  Plutarch.  There  is,  also,  this  vantage- 
ground  secured  in  the  application  of  the  word  to  Jewish 
history  and  ceremonial, — the  facts  are  thoroughly  known, 
and  the  nature  and  mode  of  the  ordinances  are  minutely  de- 
scribed. Thus  we  have  no  blank  to  till  up  by  our  precon- 
ceptions or  fruitful  imaginations.  We  are  fast  bound  by 
facts. 

If  this  field  of  inquiry  has  been  explored,  to  any  extent, 
I  am  not  aware  of  it.     While,  therefore,  it  will  have  some- 

(19) 


20  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

what  of  freshness,  it  will,  I  think,  be  also  found  to  possess 
a  very  clear  and  imperative  authority  for  determining  the 
meaning  of  this  contested  word. 

NO    DEPARTURE    FROM    THE    RADICAL    MEANING. 

This  investigation  will  present  no  antagonism  to  the  radi- 
cal meaning  of /5«--£'^w  as  developed  by  Classical  usage.  On 
the  contrary,  we  shall  sternly  and  always  insist  on  that  mean- 
ing. The  word,  carried  into  the  history  of  God's  covenant 
people,  will,  indeed,  be  found  in  a  new  atmosphere.  And 
when  applied  to  the  pure  and  purifying  rites  of  revelation, 
it  will  be  found  to  assume  another  coloring  from  that  with 
which  it  was  invested  when  found  amid  the  Bacchanalian 
orgies  of  heathenism.  The  radical  meaning  of  the  word  re- 
mains the  same;  the  laws  of  language  development  remain 
the  same;  and  the  distinctive  result,  although  without  ex- 
emplification amid  the  utterly  alien  facts  of  heathenism,  has 
the  most  absolute  indication  in  the  principles  and  actual  de- 
velopments of  Classical  usage. 

It  being,  then,  very  foreign  from  our  purpose  to  lay  a  new 
foundation  whereon  to  establish  a  Judaic  meaning  for  this 
word,  but  proposing  to  stand  squarely  on  that  already  laid 
in  the  Classics,  it  will  beof  interest  and  not  without  instruc- 
tion, to  learn  what  Baptist  writers  think  of  that  foundation. 

Classic  Baptism  had  its  severe  limitations  attached  to  it, 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  attention  of  all,  and  more 
especially  of  Baptist  scholars,  to  a  single  point, — the  classical 
use,  and  the  frank  and  full  expression  of  sentiment  upon  it. 
The  result  has  proved  happy,  so  far  as  scholars  generally  are 
concerned;  but  only  limitedly  as  relates  to  the  representa- 
tives of  Baptist  sentiment.  Among  these  there  has  been  an 
unexpected  and  unwonted  reticence.  Still,  some  have  spoken, 
and  these  sufficiently  indicate  the  course  of  future  sentiment. 

As  many  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  see  the  state- 
ments of  Baptist  criticism,  who  would  I'eel  an  interest  to  do 
80, 1  will  furnish  a  synopsis  of  them,  as  not  without  value  iu 
their  bearing  on  our  continued  inquiry. 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  21 

BAPTIST  CKITICISMS  OF  CLASSIC  BAPTISM. 
THE   CHRISTIAN    PRESS. 

The  criticisms,  first  in  order  of  time,  are  those  of  "  The 
Christian  Press."  I  give  the  remarks  of  this  periodical  be- 
cause Baptists  may  feel  a  pride  in  them,  although  others 
may  be  at  a  loss  to  know  why.     This  is  their  tenor : 

1.  "The  author  of  the  book  shows  himself  to  be  an  igno- 
ramus, to  stand  up  in  the  face  of  scholars  and  say  that  the 
classic  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  sprinkle  and  pour." 

This  statement  (aside  from  the  "  ignoramus  "  part  of  it, 
which  every  day  makes  me  feel  is  too  true)  bears  the  most 
conclusive  internal  evidence  that  the  writer  had  never  seen 
even  so  much  as  the  outside  covering  of  Classic  Baptism. 
He  evidently  thought  with  Sydney  Smith,  that  to  read  a 
book  before  criticizing  it,  was  only  a  hamper  to  genius. 

2.  "  Professor  Stuart,  and  men  of  that  class,  have  pubUshed 
to  the  world,  that  the  classic  use  of  the  word  in  all  eases,  and 
in  all  places  where  the  Greek  word  is  used,  is  to  immerse,  dip, 
overichelm."  Unwilling  to  receive  the  sentiments  of  my  old. 
instructor  through  this  new  channel,  I  turned  to  Prof.  Stuart's 
treatise,  and  there  found  this  statement  (p.  16),  "The  words 
ySot/TTw  and  iSa-rzri'^ui  havc,  in  the  Greek  classical  writers,  the 
sense  of  dip,  plunge,  immerge,  sink,  &c.  Bat  there  are  varia- 
tions from  this  prevailing  and  usual  signification."  In  this 
statement  the  meanings  of  the  two  verbs  are  thrown  together; 
the  first  two  belonging  to  ftd-^zTw,  the  last  two  to  i3ar,ri'^cj.  On 
p.  22,  "In  all  the  derived  and  secondary  meanings  of  these  words, 
it  would  seem  plain,  that  the  Greek  writers  made  a  diverse 
and  distinct  use,  never  confounding  them."  Then,  there  are 
"derived  and  secondary  meanings."  And  on  p.  34,  "Both 
the  classic  use  and  that  of  the  Septuagint  show,  that  washing 
and  copious  affusion  are  sometimes  signified  by  this  word. 
Consequently,  the  rite  of  baptism  may  have  been  performed 
in  one  of  these  ways."  And  now  let  me  ask,  whether  these 
extracts  do  not  show  that  the  critic  had  no  more  seen  Prof. 
Stuart's  treatise  than  he  had  seen  Classic  Baptism  ? 


22  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

3.  "  Of  what  authority  is  a  mere  pastor,  whose  business  it 
is  to  preach,  and  especially  one  whose  life  has  been  spent  in 
a  small  country  village" — 

It  was  my  lot  to  hear  in  a  Baptist  church,  a  Baptist.preacher 
advocate  a  Baptist  Bible,  on  this  wise  :  "  I  argued  in  the  pul- 
pit of  a  Baptist  minister,  not  favorable  to  a  new  Version,  the 
necessity  of  a  new  Translation,  because  there  were  words  in 
the  old  not  understood.  I  quoted,  in  illustration,  'Jacob 
sod  pottage.'  Why,  said  he.  Brother  B.,  I  know  what  that 
means;  I've  dug  sods  many  a  time!  He  then  pressed  his 
point  by  appealing  to  his  own  case,  saying,  I  was  preaching 
from  the  text,  '  they  that  are  alive  shall  not  prevent  them  that 
sleep,'  and  having  some  peculiar  views  on  the  resurrection, 
sustained  them  by 'prevent'  in  the  sense  to  hinder.  After 
service  a  friend  said  to  me,  Brother  B.,  '  prevent'  dont  mean 
to  hinder;  but  I  replied,  Think  I  dont  know  what  prevent 
means?  It  does  mean  to  hinder.  However,  I  found  out 
afterward,  that  prevent  does  not  mean  to  hinder.  So  I  prove 
to  you  we  must  have  a  new  Version."  If  these  friends  of 
the  critic  were  the  kind  of  men  he  puffs  at,  as  "  mere  pastors, 
whose  business  is  to  preach,"  as  it  is  a  family  affair,  I  have 
nothing  to  say. 

But  as  this  good  writer  seems  to  appreciate  only  a  certain 
style  of  evidence,  and  assured  that  it  will  make  him  look 
with  admiration  on  Classic  Baptism,  should  he  ever  have 
the  good  fortune  to  see  its  cover,  I  will  give  him  the  im- 
portant information,  that  the  "country  village"  in  which  the 
greater  part  of  the  life  of  its  author  was  spent,  contains  only 
something  less  than  a  million  of  souls. 

4.  "  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  for  any  upstart  with  his 
pedantry" —  "We  sincerely  pity  any  such  pretender,  and 
consider  tlie  lunatic  asylum  more  befitting  for  him."  "Ilis 
words  are  powerless  among  all  scholars,  of  all  names,  and 
his  name  is  branded  for  the  ignorance  and  audacity  which 
attach  to  it." 

So  endeth  the  first  criticism  of  the  pedantry,  and  pretence, 
and  lunacy,  and  ignorance,  and  presumption,  and  audacity, 
and  impudence,  of  the  upstart  and  ignoramus. 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  23 

The  man  who  writes  in  this  style  must  look  out  for  the 
Quaker,  who  said  to  the  cursing  sailor,  "  That's  right,  friend, 
spit  it  all  out ;  thee  can  never  go  to  heaven  with  such  trash 
on  thy  stomach.'"' 

THE   NATIONAL   BAPTIST. 

The  tone  of  this  article  is,  happily,  difierent  from  that  of 
the  preceding.  The  ignoramus  and  the  upstart,  the  pedant 
and  pretender,  the  lunatic  and  the  presumptuous,  the  auda- 
cious and  the  impudent,  becomes  converted  into  "  an  author 
of  no  small  ability,"  whose  "  work  is  worthy  of  careful  atten- 
tion/' while  "the  deliberateness  and  fulness  of  the  investi- 
gation challenge  our  admiration." 

1.  Embarrassment  is  expressed  at  the  statement,  "that 
the  word  immerse  expresses  not  act,  but  condition.  It  is  a 
fundamental  point  with  Mr.  Dale.  We  wish  we  knew  more 
clearly  what  he  means?" 

It  is  with  the  greatest  pleasure  that  I  seek  to  relieve  this 
embarrassment.  It  arises  from  an  oversight.  The  position 
of  Classic  Baptism  is  not  adequately  stated  by  the  language, 
"  Immerse  expresses  not  act,  but  condition," — much  less  by 
the  statement,  "Immerse  is  a  transitive  verb,  just  as  the 
corresponding  Greek  word  is,  and  it  is  sheer  nonsense  to 
insist  that  it  signifies  only  condition."  This  statement  not 
only  represents  inadequately  the  view  of  Classic  Baptism, 
but  so  misrepresents  it  as,  indeed,  to  convert  it  into  "  sheer 
nonsense."  I  have  not  the  slightest  disposition  to  charge 
this  to  the  art  of  the  controversialist,  but  sincerely  believe 
that  it  is  attributable  to  oversight,  however  remarkable  that 
oversight  may  be.  In  the  paragraph  but  one  preceding  this 
statement,  the  reviewer  quotes  this  definition:  "Baptizo, 
in  primary  use,  expresses  condition,  characterized  by  com- 
plete intusposition,  without  expressing,  and  with  absolute  in- 
difference to  the  form  of  the  act  by  which  such  intusposition 
may  be  effected,  as,  also,  without  other  limitations."  Surely 
there  is  nothing  in  this  definition  which  "signifies  onli/  con- 
dition."    There  is  act  in  the  verb,  but  the  form  of  the  act  is 


24  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

not  expressed,  wliile  the  condition,  effected  by  the  im'plied  act, 
is  directly  expressed. 

Take  a  parallel  word — ^^Envelop  the  package."  The  com- 
mand expresses  no  form  of  act;  it  implies  act,  while  express- 
ing a  condition  of  covering  in  which  the  package  is  to  be 
put.  Envelop,  like  merse,  expresses  condition,  while  the 
form  of  the  act  involved  is  unexpressed. 

This,  I  am  sure,  the  reviewer  will  not  consider  "  sheer 
nonsense ;"  nor  will  he  feel  at  liberty  to  say,  "  Mr.  Dale  as- 
sures us,  that  here  is  a  transitive  verb  which  does  not  and 
cannot  express  action,  but  only  condition." 

2.  "  Mr.  Dale  frequently  implies,  and  in  more  than  one  in- 
stance expresses,  a  conviction  that  Baptist  writers  on  this 
subject  are  not  honest." 

This  charge  is  not  a  matter  of  indiflerence  to  me.  It  is 
very  painful.  I  hold  the  flinging  of  such  charges  into  the 
faces  of  Christian  opponents  in  contemptuous  abhorrence. 
If  they  appeared  in  Classic  Baptism  I  would  blush  to  own  it 
as  any  production  of  mine.  Such  utterances  betoken  weak- 
ness and  wickedness.  When  I  have  to  resort  to  them  I  will 
stop  writing. 

3.  "  Mr.  Dale  puts  a  new  meaning  on  the  word  immerse, 
and  refuses  to  receive  the  meaning  which  dictionaries  and 
all  English  literature  assign  to  it." 

No  meaning,  new  or  old,  has  been  put  on  "  immerse." 
Report  has  been  made  of  that  meaning  put  on  it  by  "  all 
English  literature."  Courts  of  law  require,  that  the  best 
evidence  within  reach  shall  be  adduced  to  sustain  any  cause 
brought  before  them,  under  peril  of  the  conclusion,  that  if 
adduced  it  would  be  unfavorable.  The  best  evidence  within 
reach,  or  which  can  exist,  has  been  adduced, — the  usage  of 
accredited  writers.  If  this  is  not  accepted,  let  it  be  rebutted 
by  testimony  of  equal  authority. 

4.  The  reviewer  thinks  it  disingenuous  to  say,  "  In  this 
definition,  by  the  use  of  'to  put' — 'put  into  or  under' — Dr. 
Conant  gives  a  greater  breadth  and  freedom  to  baptize  than 
any  of  his  friends  who  have  preceded  him.  They  have  in- 
sisted t^at  it  meant  to  dip,  to  pUingc,  and  nothing  else.     Dr. 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  25 

Coiiant  says,  {in  Has  definition  hy  the  use  of  put — ^2)?<;  into  or 
under,)  "it  no  more  means  to  dip,  to  j)lunge,  than  does  to  pat ; 
that  is,  it  means  no  such  thing."  He  asks,  "Is  this  fair 
and  honorable  dealing?  Does  Dr.  Conant  say,  'It  no  more 
means  to  dip,  to  plunge,  than  does  to  put?'  " 

This  statement  is  so  plain  and  so  obviously  true,  that  it  is 
hard  to  imagine  how  the  idea  of  "  disingenuousness"  has 
arisen  in  the  mind  of  this  respected  reviewer.  If  /5a:rrtttt> 
has  a  meaning  so  broad  as  to  be  faithfully  represented  by 
"put  into  or  under,"  then,  it  is  simply  impossible  that  it  can 
have  the  narrow  modal  meaning  "to  dip,  to  plunge,  and 
nothing  else."  And,  thus.  Dr.  C.  says,  (by  his  definition,) 
"that  the  word  no  more  means  to  dip,  to  plunge,  than  does 
to  put:' 

5.  After  some  general  remarks,  to  show  that  dip  and  im- 
merse are  equivalents,  the  reviewer  answers  himself  by  say- 
ing, "We  are  free  to  say  that  Mr.  Dale's  labors  cannot  be 
worthless  or  unimportant.  He  has  examined  the  passages 
in  Greek  classical  authors  and  classified  them,  and  has  es- 
tablished a  difference  in  use  between  /5a7rrw  and  /3a-nta>, 
His  statement  of  that  difference  seems  to  us  defective,  but 
that  there  is  a  difference  is  evident.  He  has,  also,  brought 
clearly  out  what  our  own  examination  had  before  proved, 
that  the  word  ^a.r-i'^iu  does  not  of  itself  involve  the  lifting 
out  from  the  fluid  of  that  which  is  put  in.  In  other  words, 
that  it  is  in  that  respect  exactly  equivalent  to  the  English, 
word  immerse." 

But  if  immerse  never  takes  its  object  out,  and  dip  always 
takes  its  object  out,  how  is  it  possible  that  they  can  be 
"equivalent?"  The  Baptist  view  of  the  word,  as  heretofore 
advocated,  is  not  only  seriously  but  fatally  erroneous. 


EXAMINER   AND    CHRONICLE. 

The  critical  complaint  of  this  periodical  is  made  on  the 
ground  of  a  lack  of  submission  to  dictionaries. 

1.  "  This  interchanging  of  the  words  dip  and  plunge  and 
immerse  is  the  common  and  established  use  of  the  words. 


26  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

The  author  himself  is  the  transgressor.     Standard  lexicog- 
raphers use  them  to  define  each  other." 

To  go  back  to  dictionaries  in  this  discussion  is  to  go  back 
to  a  battle-ground  that  has  been  fought  over  a  thousand 
times  without  beneficial  result. 

The  critic  gives  the  definition  of  Webster,  "  To  dip.  To 
plunge  or  immerse  for  a  moment  or  short  time."  And  that 
of  Worcester,  "To  dip.  To  immerse;  to  plunge  into  any 
liquid."  Who,  now,  shall  be  umpire  between  Webster,  who 
says  momentary  continuance  belongs  to  this  act,  and  Wor- 
cester, who  says  nothing  of  any  such  element? 

He,  also,  gives  Webster,  "  Immerse.  To  put  under  water 
or  other  fluid ;  to  plunge,  to  dip,"  and  Worcester,  "Immerse. 
To  put  under  water  or  other  fluid ;  to  plunge  into,  to  im- 
merge,  to  overwhelm,  to  dip." 

Suppose,  now,  I  take  the  general  definition,  in  which 
there  is  no  form  of  act  and  no  limitation  of  time,  and  insist 
upon  that  as  the  true  meaning;  while  some  one  else  seizes 
on  a  particular  defining  word,  dip,  for  example,  in  which 
there  is  both  definite  form  and  limited  duration,  and  insists 
upon  that  as  the  true  exposition ;  who  shall  decide  ? 

Is  it  not  most  unreasonable  to  turn  from  an  inquiry  into 
the  meaning  of  a  word,  by  exhausting  the  cases  of  its  use, 
to  dictionaries,  among  whose  tens  of  thousands  of  words  per- 
haps not  one  has  had  its  meaning  so  determined?  It  is  only 
surprising  that  dictionaries  have  that  general  correctness 
which  they  do  possess. 

Controversial  writers  who  would  accurately  define  the 
meanings  of  single  words,  can  never  do  their  work  by  enter- 
ing into  the  labors  of  the  general  lexicographer.  Baptists 
have  defined  the  word  in  question  with  the  severest  limita- 
tions. And  when  the  supreme  authority  of  usage  is  shown 
to  condemn  such  definition,  a  cry  for  help  is  made  upon 
lexicographers. 

The  statement  that  dip,  and  plunge,  and  immerse,  as  ex- 
pressing the  same  idea,  are  interchanged  in  critical,  or  any 
other  rational  writings,  is  most  incorrect.  There  is  such  an 
interchange  in  Baptist  writings,  and  too  much  in  all  writings 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OP   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  27 

on  the  subject  of  baptism.  But  there  is  a  special  reason  for 
this.  It  is  found,  mainly,  in  the  original  confounding  to- 
gether of  (id-TiD  and  i^anri^cj  as  absolute  equivalents.  Thus 
dipping,  and  dyeing,  and  plunging,  and  merging,  formed  an 
undivided  common  heritage.  When  dyeing  was  claimed, 
and  surrendered,  as  exclusive  property,  dip  was  still  left  in 
common.  Demand  is  now  made  for  it  as  the  sole  property 
of  /9a-rw.  When  this  demand  is  met,  the  partnership  be- 
tween these  words  will  be  thoroughly  dissolved,  and  (iamiXu} 
will  take  its  place  among  that  class  of  verbs  to  which  it  be- 
longs, and  the  mixing  up  of  a  definite  act  of  momentary  con- 
tinuance, and  of  a  condition  unlimited  in  continuance,  will 
come  to  an  end.  Having  tasted  of  the  good  wine,  we  cannot 
go  back  to  the  worse. 

2.  In  a  second  article  this  periodical  adduces  a  second 
objection,  which  is  regarded  as  of  sufficient  importance  to 
engross  the  entire  article.  It  is  directed  against  the  final 
summary  statement,  and  is  presented  as  follows: 

"  We  have  reviewed  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dale's  book,  but  we 
refer  to  it  again.  The  conclusion  is  this:  'Whatever  is  capa- 
ble of  changing  the  character,  state,  or  condition  of  any  ob- 
ject, is  capable  of  baptizing  that  object;  and  b}^  such  change 
of  character,  state,  or  condition,  does  in  fact  baptize  it.'  , 

"A  definition  is  usually  made  more  clear  and  forcible  by 
examples.  The  first  illustration  that  occurs  to  us  after  read- 
ing this  definition,  is  the  baptism  of  gunpowder  by  a  match. 
How  thoroughly  the  condition  of  the  powder  is  changed  in 
that  case!  Was  it  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  or  was  it  the  surrender  of  Lee,  that  baptized 
millions  of  negroes  from  chattels  into  freemen?  What  a 
famous  baptizer  the  stomach  is?  How  thoroughly  it  changes 
the  character  and  condition  of  meat,  fruits,  and  vegetables ! 
Some  baptisms  are  very  gradual.  How  long  it  takes,  for 
instance,  to  baptize  an  acorn  into  an  oak !  The  baptism 
of  fire — how  plain  and  pregnant  that  expression  becomes, 
in  the  light  of  Mr.  Dale's  definition !  Yes,  fire  is  a  great 
baptizer.  It  baptizes  water  into  steam,  dough  into  bread, 
wood  and  coal  into  ashes  and  smoke.     Our  fire-places,  and 


28  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

stoves,  and  furnaces,  what  are  they  but  baptisteries?  Our 
great  factories,  what  unwearied  and  efficient  administrators 
of  baptism  they  are !  What  quantities  of  wool  or  cotton 
they  baptize  into  cloth  every  day!  Our  chemists  and  apothe- 
caries, too,  what  expeditious  and  thorough  baptizers  they 
are!" 

The  Examiner,  no  doubt,  believes  that  there  is  substantial 
logic  under  this  dash  of  wit  and  ridicule,  or  it  would  not 
have  put  it  into  type.  Classic  Baptism  must  be  prepared  to 
stand  lire,  even  though  it  be  "  wild  fire,"  which  any  one 
may  choose  to  direct  against  it.  Any  assault,  within  the 
limits  of  goodbreeding,  whether  under  the  mask  of  Comus 
or  with  the  open  and  frowning  front  of  Tragedy,  will  receive 
both  toleration  and  welcome  from  its  author. 

It  is,  also,  obvious,  that  "the  conclusion"  must  be  shown 
to  be  invulnerable  to  assaults  of  every  character.  This  is 
the  more  important  because  the  aspect  of  baptism  therein 
presented  is  not  familiar,  and,  consequently,  forms  of 
thought  not  heretofore  regarded  as  baptisms,  or  as  capable 
of  being  thrown  into  such  a  form,  might  be  received  with 
embarrassment  or  be  entirely  rejected.  I  will,  therefore, 
resist  the  temptation  to  "  answer  the  unwise  according  to 
their  unwisdom,"  and  will  give  a  sober  reply  to  these  sug- 
gestions of  the  Examiner. 

1.  As  to  the  gunpowder  baptism.  In  so  far  as  this  may 
be  spoken  of  as  a  baptism,  at  all,  it  is  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  martyr  baptism  by  fire.  The  flesh  and  bones  of  a 
"witness"  for  Jesus  subjected  to  the  influence  of  fire  are 
changed  into  ashes.  Gunpowder  subjected  to  the  influence 
of  Are  is  changed  into  sulphurous  vapor.  The  baptisms  are 
not  distinctively  the  same.  3Iart>/r  fire  effects  not  merely 
a  destructive  baptism,  but  also,  a  purifying  baptism.  A 
lighted  match  ettbcts  only  a  destructive  baptism. 

2.  Baptism  into  freedom.  The  Examiner  ought  to  be 
familiar  with  the  historical  baptisms  of  bondsmen,  "in  the 
name  of  a  freeman,"  when  al)out  to  be  released  from  slavery. 
And  I  hope  that,  before  long,  it  will  also  understand,  that 


BAPTIST    CRITICISMS    OF   CLASSIC    BAPTISM.  29 

the  millions  of  Israel  were  by  the  proclamation  of  Jehovah, 
and  the  issue  of  the  struggle  of  the  Egyptian  hosts  in  the 
rushing  sea  waters,  baptized,  from  a  condition  of  bondage 
to  Pharaoh,  into  a  condition  of  freedom-subjection  to  Moses. 

3.  "  What  a  baptizer  the  stomach  is  !"  Yes,  even  beyond 
what  the  wit  of  the  Examiner  has  discovered.  (1.)  The 
stomach  baptizes  pork  and  cabbage  (as  the  receptacle  down 
into  which  they  are  swallowed),  as  the  ship  and  her  crew  are 
baptized,  swallowed  up,  by  the  gaping  mouth  of  old  ocean. 
This  baptism  the  Examiner  does  not  like ;  it  lasts  too  long. 
(2.)  The  stomach  baptizes  its  contents  by  thoroughly  chang- 
ing their  condition  through  its  peculiar  influences,  just  as 
ocean  by  its  briny  waters  disintegrates  the  oaken  timber  and 
iron  bolts  of  the  ship,  as  well  as  the  flesh  and  bones  of  her 
hapless  crew.  (3.)  The  stomach,  when  it  fails  to  baptize 
pork  and  cabbage,  baptizes  the  body  and  the  mind  through 
this  leaden  burden  which  it  carries.  It  is  of  escape  from 
this  baptism  through  the  stomach,  Plutarch  says,  "  A  great 
resource  truly  for  a  pleasant  day  is  a  good  temperament  of 
the  body  unbaptized  and  unburdened."  (Classic  B,,  p.  338.) 
Is  there  more  here  of  stomachic  baptism  than  the  Examiner 
bargained  for?     "  What  a  famous  baptizer  the  stomach  is !" 

4.  Acorn  baptism.  "  How  long  it  takes  to  baptize  an 
acorn  into  an  oak!"  Yes,  quite  long;  yet  not  near  so  long 
as  to  baptize  "  all  nations."  The  Examiner  will  not  deny 
that  a  burial  is  a  baptism.  An  acorn  buried  in  the  ground 
is  baptized,  then.  How  long  does  this  baptism  last?  The 
burial  baptism  of  the  acorn  brings  with  it  sweet  influences 
from  earth  and  air  and  sky,  by  which  it  receives  a  baptism 
into  life,  whose  new  condition  is  the  oak.  After  all,  this 
baptism  is  not  so  funny. 

5.  "Fire  is  a  great  baptizer."  A  very  true  statement, 
and  one  of  which  the  Examiner  will  hear  more,  if  Judaic 
Baptism  should  be  read.  Baptism  by  any  influence  imports 
the  subjection  of  the  baptized  object  to  the  full  controlling 
power  of  that  influence.  "  There  are  some  things  which 
exert  over  certain  objects  a  definite  and  unvarying  influence. 
Whenever,  therefore,  /Jarrrttw  is  used  to  express  the  relation 


30  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

between  such  agencies  and  their  objects,  it  gives  develop- 
ment in  the  completest  manner  to  that  specific  influence."  (C. 
B.,  p.  316.)  The  specific  influences  of  fire  are  :  1.  A  power 
to  destroy.     2.  A  power  to  purify. 

When  fire  is  used  to  bake  bread,  or  to  boil  the  kettle,  it 
is  used  for  the  development  of  neither  of  these  influences. 
They  are  not,  therefore,  cases  of  baptism.  Where  tire  is 
used  to  consume  fuel,  it  is  inappropriate  to  speak  of  it  as  a 
case  of  baptism  by  fire,  because  the  object  is  not  to  destroy 
the  fuel,  but  to  give  warmth  to  those  around  it.  But  if  any 
one  chooses  to  set  his  woods,  or  his  house,  or  his  bonds  and 
mortgages,  on  fire,  he  will  secure  what  the  classics  would 
thoroughly  understand  by  a  baptism  of  fire. 

It  is  a  blundering  use  of  language,  however,  to  say  that 
the  object  burned  is  "  baptized  into  ashes."  There  is  neither 
truth  nor  sense  in  saying,  that  a  burned  object  is  "baptized 
into  ashes."  "  Ashes  "  constitute  the  object  itself  in  another 
form.  You  cannot  put  a  thing  into  itself.  The  proper  ex- 
pression is,  as  everywhere  through  the  Classics,  baptized  by 
jire.  Tliis  carries  its  own  explanation  with  it.  If  it  is  a 
combustible  body,  then  we  know  that  it  is  destroyed.  If  it 
is  a  metallic  ore,  then  we  know  that  it  is  purified  from  its 
dross.  If  it  is  the  "impure  lips"  of  Isaiah,  then  we  know 
that  they  are  purified  from  defilement.  "Fire  is  a  great 
baptizer." 

6.  "  Our  fire-places,  and  stoves,  and  furnaces,  what  are 
they  all  but  baptisteries?"  But  the  Examiner  is  superficial 
in  his  examination.  Why  not  complete  the  catalogue?  Let 
me  help  the  critic  by  authority  more  unquestionable  than 
that  whicli  has  furnished  the  fire-place,  stove,  and  furnace 
baptistery. 

What  are  our  grog-shops,  with  their  bad  whisky,  but  bap- 
tisteries? (C.  B.,  pp.  289,  319.)  What  are  our  eating-houses, 
with  tough  beef  and  half-baked  pastry,  but  baptisteries  ? 
(C.  B.,  p.  338.)  What  are  our  apothecary-shops,  with  their 
soporifics,  and  sedatives,  and  stimulants,  but  baptisteries? 
(C.  B.,  p.  318.)  What  are  our  pest-houses,  reeking  with 
malaria,  but  baptisteries?  (C.  B.,  p.  304.)     What  arc  our 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  31 

fortune-telling  establishmeuts,  with  their  lying  arts,  but  bap- 
tisteries? (C.  B.,idcm.)  "What  are  our  schools,  that  "cram" 
the  brain  of  childhood,  but  baptisteries?  (C.  B.,  p.  308.) 
"What  are  our  college-halls,  where  hard  questions  "  stump" 
the  modest  and  "flunk"  the  Freshman,  but  baptisteries? 

(C.  B.,  p.  334.)     What "  Tene  manum,"  do  you  say? 

Well,  be  it  so,  we  will  leave  the  catalogue  incomplete;  only 
adding,  when  the  theory  of  water  dipping  shall  have  brought 
itself  into  harmony  with  these  classic  baptisteries,  ''the  con- 
clusion" will  take  care  of  those  of  the  "  fire-place,  the  stove, 
and  the  furnace." 

7.  "  Our  great  factories — Lowell,  Lawrence,  and  Manches- 
ter— what  baptizers!"  These  great  establishments  use  alto- 
gether too  "  much  water"  for  Classic  Baptism  to  run  them. 
If  the  Examiner  will  put  on  suflaciently  good  glasses  he  will 
see,  that  the  conversion  of  cotton  and  wool,  by  machinery, 
into  sheeting  and  broadcloth,  neither  changes  the  condition 
of  its  object  by  putting  it  within  a  physical  element,  nor  does 
its  work  by  an  influence.  They,  therefore,  do  not  belong  to 
us.  We  remand  these  machinery  Baptists  back  to  the  Ex- 
aminer's office. 

In  a  third  article,  the  Examiner  makes  a  draft  for  its  criti- 
cisms upon 

THE    NEW    ENGLANDER. 

The  first  quotation  has  reference  to  figurative  use. 

1.  "  The  Greek  word  is  used  in  many  cases  where  there 
is  no  literal  physical  submergence.  Mr.  Dale  has  not  over- 
looked these  uses ;  he  gives  them  a  great  deal  of  attention ; 
but  it  is  much  to  be  regretted,  and  it  is  the  great  defect  of 
the  book,  that  his  treatment  of  them  is,  in  important  respects, 
unnatural  and  arbitrary.  It  may  be  difficult  to  determine,  in 
some  cases,  whether  the  primary  meaning  is  wholly  lost  in 
the  secondary,  or  whether  something  of  the  former  remains 
to  give  picturesqueness  and  vivacity  to  the  latter.  But  very 
few,  we  think,  will  agree  with  the  author  of  this  w^ork  in  the 
extent  to  which  he  assumes  a  complete  obliteration  of  pri- 
mary meaning  and  a  consequent  loss  of  figurative  character." 


32  JUDAIC    BAPTISxM. 

I  have  no  novelties  to  offer  on  the  subject  of  figurative 
language.  I  do  not  speak  ex  cathedra,  but  will  take  my  place 
at  the  feet  of  any  one  who  Vv'ill  give  me  instruction.  The 
subject  has  its  difficulties,  as  any  one  will  feel  who  reflects 
upon  it,  or  who  will  read  those  who  have  done  so.  But,  as 
to  this  critic,  there  seems  to  be  no  principle  separating  us. 
It  is  a  question  of  "extent"  only.  And  if  this  be  "the 
greatest  defect  of  the  book,"  tlien  it  will  answer  very  well 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  written. 

The  principles  which  have  governed  my  interpretation  of 
language  not  used  in  physical  relations,  have  been  mainly 
these  : 

1.  Familiar  and  long-continued  use  wears  out  the  original 
ph3'sical  allusion. 

2.  "Where  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  writer  has  the 
physical  application  in  his  mind,  and  a  meaning  is  promptly 
and  clearly  attained  without  any  such  reference,  that  mean- 
ing should  be  regarded  not  as  borrowed,  but  as  its  own ;  not 
as  figurative,  but  as  literal,  secondary. 

3.  Long  absolute  use  of  a  word,  in  like  connection,  com- 
municates to  that  word  a  specific  meaning  growing  out  of 
such  relations. 

These  principles  are  neither  singular  nor  questionable. 
Campbell,  the  Principal  of  Marischal  College,  and  regarded 
by  Dr.  Carson  as  the  Prince  of  Rhetoricians,  says :  "And  as 
to  ordinary  metaphors,  or  those  which  have  already  received 
the  public  sanction,  and  wdiich  are  commonly  very  numerous 
in  every  tongue,  the  metaphorical  meaning  comes  to  be  as 
really  ascertained  by  custom  in  the  particular  language,  as 
the  original,  or  what  is  called  the  literal,  meaning  of  the 
word.  .  .  .  One  plain  consequence  of  this  doctrine  is,  that 
there  will  be  in  many  words  a  transition,  more  or  less  rapid, 
from  their  being  the  figurative,  to  their  being  the  proper 
signs  of  certain  ideas.  The  transition  from  the  figurative 
to  the  proper,  in  regard  to  such  terms  as  are  in  daily  use,  is 
indeed  inevitable.  .  .  .  They  cannot  be  considered  as  genuine 
metaphors  by  the  rhetorician.  I  have  already  assigned  the 
reason.     They  have  nothing  of  the  effect  of  metaphor  upon 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS    OP   CLASSIC   BAPTISxM.  33 

the  hearer.  On  the  contrary,  like  proper  terras,  they  suggest 
directly  to  his  mind,  without  the  intervention  of  any  image, 
the  ideas  which  the  speaker  proposed  to  convey  by  them." 

Allow  me  to  call  especial  attention  to  the  following  state- 
ment: "Again,  it  ought  to  be  considered,  that  many  words 
which  must  appear  as  tropical  to  a  learner  of  a  distant  age, 
who  acquires  the  language  by  the  help  of  grammars  and  dic- 
tionaries, may,  through  the  imperceptible  influence  of  use, 
have  totally  lost  that  appearance  to  the  natives,  who  con- 
sidered them  purely  as  proper  terms." — Philosoplii;  of  Rhd., 
iii,  1. 

In  writing  Classic  Baptism,  I  had  not  looked  into  Camp- 
bell ;  but  the  views  here  presented  are  the  same  which  rule 
there.  I  am  not  aware  that  they  differ  from  other  accredited 
writers. 

Dr.  Carson  has  written  a  Treatise  on  the  Figures  of  Speech, 
to  supply  "  a  deficiency  in  our  language  to  this  day."  In 
that  work  he  can  find  no  writer,  from  Quintiilian  to  Blair, 
to  satisfy  him  as  to  the  definition  of  Figure^  'Eoy  does  he 
know  any  "  author,  ancient  or  modern,  that  has,  with  philo- 
sophical accuracy,  drawn  a  line  of  distinction  between  the 
territories  of  common  expression  anel  those  of  figurative 
language."  In  his  conception  of  metaphor,  he  declares  his 
rejection  of  "  the  doctrine  of  Quintiilian,  Lord  Kames,  Dr. 
Campbell,  and  Dr.  Blair."  These  writers  all  agree  in  the 
definition  given  by  the  Roman, — "Metaphor  is  a  shorter 
similitude."  Carson  says,  "  Metaphor  always  asserts  what 
is  manifestly  false.  Metaphor  asserts  not  only  a  falsehood, 
but  an  absurdity, — that  one  object  is  another."  He  insists 
upon  it,  that  not  a  comparison^  but  a  naked  declaration,  is 
made  in  the  statement,  "Achilles  is  a  lion."  He  admits 
likeness  to  be  the  ground  of  the  statement,,  and,  therefore, 
objects  to  the  metaphor,  "  Steep  me  in  poverty  to  the  very 
lips,"  saying,  "It  is  here  supposed  that  there  is  a  likeness 
between  being  in  great  poverty  and  being  steeped  in  water. 
We  cannot  say  that  the  likeness  is  faint,  for  there  is  no  like- 
ness at  all."     Dr.  Carson's  peculiar  ideas- led  him  to  put  the 

3 


34  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

man  spoken  of,  in  v:akr  to  tlie  lips;  Avliieh  being  done,  lie 
found  no  ground  for  the  figure.  And  no  wonder,  for  the 
figure  is  designed  to  develop  the  influence  of  iX)Ve:rUj  to  a 
degree  which  shall  be  only  short  of  destroying  life,  and  to 
put  a  man  in  water  to  the  lips  produces  no  evil  influence; 
but  if  you  will  put  any  absorbent  into  a  liquid  until  it  shall 
become,  with  a  small  exception,  penetrated  by  its  peculiari- 
ties, you  will  have  the  basis  of  the  figure.  AVe,  then,  come 
back  to  the  man  and  poverty,  and  interpret  the  language  as 
expressive  of  the  influences  of  poverty  in  an  extreme  degree. 
For  the  same  reason.  Dr.  C.  carries  a  man  baptized  by  ques- 
tions, or  by  sleep,  or  by  wizard  arts,  into  the  water,  with  which 
such  a  one  has  nothing  to  do;  but  the  language  is  grounded 
in  the  resemblance  of  influence  which  may  be  found,  not 
between  the  man  bewildered,  sleepy,  or  jyossessed  with  the  devil, 
and  a  man  under  icater,  but  between  such  a  one  as  to  the 
controlling  influence  to  which  he  is  subjected,  and  any  ob- 
ject under  the  influence  of  a  liquid  by  mersion. 

Against  such  interpretations  of  metaphor  Classic  Baptism 
protests.  And  it  may  be  that  it  is  the  unreserved  rejection 
of  this  "  Achilles  is  a  lion  "  metaphor,  introducing  ever  more 
picture  figures  of  dipping  men,  and  cities,  and  continents, 
into  water,  which  the  New  Englander  has  unwittingly  termed 
"  unnatural  and  arbitrary." 

I  have  spoken  to  this  criticism,  because  while  it  is  not 
essential  to  the  issue,  yet  it  has  its  interest  and  importance. 

I  only  add  a  word  as  to  the  "  extent"  to  which  the  denial 
of  figure  is  carried.  1.  It  embraces  a  single  class  of  phrases 
in  which  a  grammatical  form  (the  dative  without  a  preposi- 
tion), not  found  in  the  other  class  of  baptisms,  expresses 
agency,  and  in  which  there  is  no  direct  or  incidental  evi- 
dence of  a  physical  scene  being  present  to  the  mind  of  the 
writer.  2.  The  absolute  use  of  the  word  in  the  same  re- 
peated connection.  This  is  the  "  extent"  of  my  oflending, 
no  more.  And  a  thorough  examination  of  the  merits  of  the 
case  will,  I  think,  make  that  extent  a  vanishing  quantity. 

2.  The  Examiner  introduces  a  second  criticism  from  this 
periodical   thus:    "  liemarking   on   the   assertion    that  any 


BAPTIST    CRITICISMS    OF   CLASSIC    BAPTISM.  35 

thorough  change  of  condition  is  a  baptism,  the  reviewer  ob- 
serves"— 

Allow  me  to  observe,  that  this  statement  makes  a  perfect 
metamorphosis  of  the  statement  of  Classic  Baptism.  It  does 
not  say  that  "  any  thorough  change  of  condition  is  a  bap- 
tism," but,  "Whatever"  (act  or  influence)  "is  capable  of 
thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  condition  oiavy 
object,  is, capable  of  baptizing  that  object,"  (according  to  the 
nature  of  the  case,  if  an  "  act,"  by  putting  it  into  the  new 
condition  of  intusposition,  wath  or  without  influence,  or,  if 
au  "  influence,"  by  assimilating  its  condition  to  itself  by  a 
controlling  power.) 

"  Thorough  change  of  condition"  is  a  genus,  wnth  its 
species  and  their  individuals.  Classic  Baptism  does  not  treat 
of  the  genus,  but  of  species,  two,  to  wit,  1.  Such  thorough 
change  of  condition  as  results  from  the  intusposition  of  ob- 
jects within  physical  elements;  and,  2.  Such  thorough  change 
of  condition  as  results  from  a  controlling  assimilative  influ- 
ence. Wine,  opiate,  grief,  debt,  excessive  study,  &c.,  &c., 
controlling  the  conditions  of  their  objects,  so  as  to  bring 
them  into  a  new  condition,  assimilated  to  their  several  in- 
fluences. 

The  two  statements,  "  «??^  thorough  change  of  condition," 
and  the  thorough  change  of  condition  of  ^^  any  object, ^^  needs 
■  but  to  be  made  in  order  that  their  utter  diversity  may  be  ap- 
prehended. 

But  it  is  this  transference  (inadvertent  no  doubt)  of  "  any," 
from  its  true  connection  with  "  objects,"  to  a  false  connec- 
tion with  "  condition,"  which  makes  the  foundation  for  the 
"funny"  baptism  of  the  Examiner,  and  the  erroneously  con- 
ceived baptism  of  the  IsTew  Englander,  now  to  be  noticed. 

"  He  does  not  say,  that  a  surgeon,  who  by  a  successful 
amputation  saves  a  dying  patient,  baptizes  that  patient ;  or 
that  a  whetstone,  when  it  makes  a  dull  knife  into  a  sharp 
one,  baptizes  the  knife;  or  that  the  sun,  when  it  dries  up  a 
stream  in  summer,  baptizes  the  stream.  But  we  are  left  to 
suppose  that  he  would  regard  these  and  others  like  these,  as 
natural  and  appropriate  expressions." 


36  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

If  left,  heretofore,  to  such  inference,  let  me  try  to  place  an 
efteetual  o^uard  as^ainst  it  hereafter. 

After  what  has  been  already  said,  this,  perhaps,  can  be 
best  done  by  a  case.  A  man  having  a  child  sick  with  some 
internal  disease,  falls  on  a  medical  work  treating  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  presenting  this  conclusion  :  "A  sovereign  remedy 
for  this  disease,  is  a  thorough  drenching  with  oil  and  rhu- 
barb. If  restive  under  the  application,  he  must  be  quieted  by 
tightly  twisting  the  upper  lip  and  nose."  Having  read  "  the 
conclusion,"  and  thus  diplomatized  for  practice,  he  prepares 
a  bucketful  of  the  mixture,  and  at  the  bedside  of  his  child 
prepares  to  "  drench  "  him  from  head  to  foot.  His  restiveness 
is  stilled  by  a  tourniquet  for  lip  and  nose,  but  not  without 
outcry.  A  passer  by  looks  in,  to  whom  the  scene  is  ex- 
pounded through  the  disease  and  "  the  conclusion."  The 
newcomer  turns  over  the  volume  and  exclaims,  "  Why,  this 
book  treats  of  the  diseases  of  horses !  And  it  says,  that '  to 
drench,  is  to  empty  a  bottle  of  the  stufi'down  a  horse's  throat !' " 
{Exeunt  omnes.) 

If  now  the  Examiner  and  the  New  Englander  had  not  hur- 
ried into  practice  on  a  hasty  preparation  from  "  the  conclu- 
sion," but  had  taken  a  full  course  of  reading  in  the  volume, 
they  would  have  discovered,  if  not  that  "  drench"  is  double- 
faced,  yet,  that  "  character,  state,  or  condition,"  is  more  than 
bi-frons,  and  would  have  felt  it  desirable  to  conform  their 
professional  practice  to  that  aspect  presented  in  the  book, 
and  not  have  concluded  that  "  he"  meant  child,  instead  of 
horse,  and  "drench"  meant  a  dash  of  a  bucketful  of  the 
mixture,  instead  of  the  swallowing  of  a  cathartic. 

If  the  machinery  of  Lowell,  or  the  whetstone,  or  the  knife 
of  "the  univei-sal  whittler"  can  put  forth  an  "act"  intro- 
ducing its  object  into  a  fluid  clement,  then  it  can  perform  a 
baptism  of  the  iirst  class,  changing  condition  by  intusposition 
with  or  Avithout  influence;  or,  if  they  are  able  to  send  forth 
"influences"  which  shall  pervade  a  bale  of  wool,  a  mower's 
scythe,  or  a  bit  of  shingle,  thereby  controlling  or  assimila- 
ting them  to  their  own  nature,  then  they  can  perforin  bap- 
tisms of  the  second  class,  changing  condition  by  influence. 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  37 

"  But  all  this  is  not  stated  in  '  the  conclusion,'  "  No  more 
is  Jiorse  stated  in  "  the  conclusion,"  and  yet  "he"  is  there. 
And,  so,  all  this,  and  a  great  deal  more,  is  in  "  the  conclu- 
sion," for  the  Examiuer,  says,  "  It  is  the  conclusion  of  354 
pages  of  critical  discussion."  There  are  three  hundred  and 
fifty-four  pages  in  "  the  conclusion." 

3.  The  Examiner  says,  "  still  more  :"  and  quotes :  "  The 
English  word  immerse,  according  to  our  author,  has  nearly 
the  same  primary  meaning  as  the  Greek  /3a-r£'>,  and  it  ex- 
presses, as  Mr.  Dale  says,  'thorough  influence  of  any  kind.'" 
Let  the  reader  observe  the  words,  "  of  any  kmd,"  and  say 
whether  we  are  not  authorized  to  affirm,  that  "  whatever  is 
capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  con- 
dition of  any  object,  is  capable  oi  immersing  that  object;  and 
by  such  change  of  character,  state,  or  condition,  does  in  fact 
immerse  it."  "We  do  not  see  how  this  conclusion  is  to  be 
avoided,  though  we  fear  the  Baptist  enemy  may  take  ad- 
vantage of  it  to  murmur  with  the  little  breath  our  author 
has  left  him :  "  Baptizing,  then,  is  immersing,  and  immersing 
is  baptizing,'' 

,  When  I  read  the  statement,  "  Mr.  Dale  says  immerse  ex- 
presses influence  of  any  kind.  Let  the  reader  observe 
the  words  of  any  kind,"  I  said  to  myself.  Well,  j'ou  have 
nodded  here,  if  not  in  the  conclusion,  and  prepared  myself 
to  confess,  with  as  good  a  grace  as  might  be,  a  slip  in  the  too 
great  breadth  of  the  language.  However,  on  turning  to  C. 
B.,  p.  212, 1  read,  "  It  expresses  thorouch  influence  of  any  kind ; 
the  nature  determined  by  the  adjunct."  I,  then,  smiled  at  my 
fears  and  sighed  over  the  unreliability  of  quotations.  And 
it  becomes  my  turn  to  say,  "  Let  the  reader  observe  the 
words,"  the  nature  determined  by  the  adjunct.  Does  not  this 
limit,  in  the  sharpest  manner,  "  any  kind  of  influence  ?"  It 
can  develop  no  kind  of  influence,  but  that  which  belongs  to 
its  "adjunct."  And  it  can  have  no  "adjunct"  but  what  use 
attaches  to  it.  And  use  can  attach  no  adjunct  to  it,  but  such 
as  may  receive  appropriate  development  through  the  word. 
Suppose  we  laugh  at  use,  and  take  some  of  the  "  funny" 


3S  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

adjuncts  to  which  we  have  been  just  introduced,  and  see  how 
the  "  any  kind"  of  influence  is  developed.  "  A  dull  knife 
immersed  in  a  ichetstone  becomes  very  sharp."  "  A  dying  man 
immersed  in  a  surgeon's  scalpel  springs  into  life."  "  A  summer 
pool  immersed  in  solar  beams  scuds  through  the  sky."  "  A 
bag  of  wool  immersed  in  a  power-loom  is  influenced  into  broad- 
cloth !"   Whetstones,  scalpels,  &c.,  &c.,  are  "funny"  adjuncts 

of  ^aTcri^w. 

I  believe  the  statement  may  stand  without  the  need  of 
pleading  for  grace.  Immerse  must  have  a  tit  adjunct,  and 
the  adjunct  determines  the  nature  of  the  influence. 

It  is  farther  to  be  observed,  that  the  inference  from  the 
fact,  that  because  immerse  passes  through  the  same  general 
phases  of  usage,  with  ^aizzi^w,  it  must,  therefore,  have  the  same 
specific  meanings,  is  not  well  grounded. 

Immerse  has  meanings  which  the  Greek  word  has  not; 
and  the  Greek  word  has  meanings  which  immerse  has  not. 

The  grammatical  combinations  of  the  two  words  difler. 
In  secondary  use,  immerse  in  is  the  almost  invariable  form  ; 
w^hile  in  secondary  use,  bajyiize  by,  is,  so  far  as  I  remember, 
the  absolutely  invariable  form.  This  diversity  of  form  is 
indicative  of  diversity  both  of  conception  and  of  meaning. 
The  difterence  of  conception  is  ingrained  in  the  terms.  The 
difference  of  meaning  is,  sometimes,  most  obvious,  "im- 
merscd  in  business"  indicates  active,  earnest,  and  constant 
engagement  in  business  pursuits;  whWe  ^^  baptized  by  busi- 
ness" indicates  an  embarrassed  condition  resulting  from  mul- 
tiplied engagements.  '■'•Immersed  in  study  "  indicates  thorough 
engagedness  in  student  life;  while  "  baptized  by  study"  indi- 
cates mental  prostration  as  the  resultant  condition  of  study. 
The  inference,  therefore,  of  the  entire  sameness  of  these 
words  is  not  correct. 

But  on  the  supposition  that  these  words  were  fac  similes 
in  meaning,  it  would  liardly  be  worth  while  for  "the  enemy" 
to  waste  their  "spent  breath"  in  saying,  "  immersing  is  bap- 
tizing and  baptizing  is  immersing,"  inasmuch  as  "  immers- 
ing "  must  first  have  secured  all  the  meanings  shown  by 
Classic  Baptism  to  belong  to  baptizing,  in  which  case  the 


BAPTIST    CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  39 

hard  breathing  would  be  wasted  on  the  tautology,  "  baptizing 
is  baptizing,  and  baptizing  is  baptizing." 

We  cheerfully  make  over  to  "the  Baptist  enemy,"  (espe- 
cially as  we  have  not  heretofore  had  much  opportunity  to 
show  them  favor,)  all  right,  title,  and  privilege,  which  may 
appertain  to  this  discovery. 

THE    RELIGIOUS   HERALD. 

The  book  has  been  reviewed  by  the  Religious  Herald,  in 
four  consecutive  numbers,  embracing  nine  columns.  I  am 
indebted  to  its  editors  for  the  privilege  of  reading  those 
articles,  and  it  is  with  no  ordinary  pleasure  that  I  say,  that 
there  is  no  discourteous  word  in  those  nine  columns.  They 
do  not  intimate  that  they  have  found  any  such  word  in  Clas- 
sic Baptism.  I  have  no  such  words  for  Christian  brethren. 
With  those  who  use  them,  I  wish  to  have  nothing  to  do.  If 
there  are  any  whose  errors  need  such  chastening,  I  turn  them 
over  to  the  discipline  of  others. 

The  Herald  "declines  to  discuss  the  meaning  of /Jarrtt^  as 
to  its  discriminating  meaning,  but  limits  itself  to  the  argu- 
mentiim  ad  hominem  and  redtidio  ad  ahsurdumJ^  Any  weapon, 
undipped  in  poisonous  bile,  which  an  opponent  thinks  best 
adapted  to  his  purpose,  is  welcome  to  the  lists. 

1.  The  Herald  says,  "Baptist  writers  have  maintained,  in 
common  with  the  most  distinguished  lexicographers  and 
critics,  that  ftar^riXu)  signifies  dip,  j)limge,  or  immerse ;  that  it  is 
a  modal  term,  denoting  a  specific  act,  and  not  an  effect  re- 
sulting from  an  act :  that  it  has  the  same  meaning  as  [idzxw^ 
except  that  of  dye  or  smear." 

To  sustain  the  lexicographical  part  of  this  statement,  it  is 
said,  "Donnegan  defines  it:  To  immerse  repeatedly  into  a 
liquid;  to  submerge,  to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate;  hence 
to  drench  with  wine,  meia'phorically  to  confound  totally." 

Does  the  Herald,  in  its  gentle  courtesy,  mean  that  in  ex- 
changing friendly  buffets,  we  should,  like  Friar  Tuck  and 
Richard,  take  turn  about,  and  therefore  quote  this  definition 
to  give  me,  too,  a  chance  for  the  argumentam  ad  hominem? 


40  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

The  Herald  says,  through  Donnegan,  that  /J^mtw  means 
"to  submerge,"  in  wliich  there  is  no  modal  act;  3'et  it  says 
in  proper  person,  it  docs  mean  "a  modal  act;"  how  is  this? 
The  Herald  says,  through  Donnegan,  ftar.ri^u)  means  "to  soak 
thoroughly,"  in  which  there  is  no  specific  act;  yet  it  says  in 
proper  person,  it  does  mean  "a  specific  act;"  how  is  this? 
The  Herald  says,  through  Donnegan,  /Sarrttw  means  "to  satu- 
rate," which  expresses  not  an  act,  but  an  effect  resulting 
from  an  act;  yet  it  says  in  proper  person,  it  does  mean  "an 
act,  and  not  an  effect  proceeding  from  an  act;"  how  is  this? 

Was  tlie  Herald  napping  when  it  w^andered  into  the  land 
of  lexicography? 

Besides,  Donnegan  says,  (iar.-i'^u)  means,  literally,  "to  drench 
with  wine,"  (to  make  drunk),  and  also,  literally,  in  secondary 
(metaphorical)  use,  "to  confound  totally." 

If  a  more  suicidal  blow  was  ever  given  to  any  cause  than 
is  given  to  the  Baptist  theory  b}'  the  proffer  of  this  defini- 
tion, I  cannot  conceive  when,  or  where,  or  how,  it  was  done. 

This  definition  suggests  the  farther  remark:  to  look  to 
dictionaries  as  authority  to  settle  this  controversy  is  foll}^ 

Will  the  Herald,  or  the  Baptist  world,  accept  the  very  first 
(which  ought  to  be  the  very  best)  definition  given  by  this, 
undoubtedly  learned,  lexicographer,  to  wit:  "To  immerse 
repeatedly  into  a  liquid?"  This  definition,  in  common  with 
other  errors,  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word,  is  now  rejected 
by  scholars  of  every  name.  How  idle  the  complaint,  then, 
that  Classic  Baptism  is  not  filled  with  lexicons. 

But  Classic  Baptism  has  not  refused  to  consider  lexical 
definitions  because  they  were  inituical.     It  is  far  otherwise. 

Every  position  of  Classic  Ba})tism  can  be  deduced  from  this 
definition  of  Donnegan.  1.  It  utterly  rejects  modal  act  as 
the  meaning  of  the  word.  2.  It  shows,  in  the  most  absolute 
manner,  the  meaning  to  be,  a  condition  effected  by  an  un- 
expressed act.  3.  Further,  it  sustains  the  distinctions  made: 
(1.)  "  Intusposition  without  influence."  This  is  done  by  the 
iMxkcd  submerge.  (2.)  "Intusposition  with  influence."  This 
is  expressed  by  to  saturate.  (3.)  "  Intusposition  for  influence." 
This  is  evidently  in  to  soak  thoroughly.    (4.)  "Influence  with- 


BAPTIST  CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  41 

out  intusposition."  This  is,  as  clearly,  in  io  drench  (make 
drunk)  icilh  loine.  And  (5.)  "  Influence  without  intusposition, 
in  the  case  of  elements  not  physical."  This  is  exemplified 
by  a  particular  case,  to  covfound  totally  ;  which  is  undoubtedly 
derived  from  the  case  of  the  youth  mentioned  in  Classic 
Baptism  (p.  334),  who  was  baptized,  bewildered,  "  totally 
confounded"  hy  questions.  Donnegan  and  Classic  Baptism 
are  in  fall  accord.  It  is  most  unaccountable  that  any  one 
should  say,  that  the  Baptist  theory  of  this  word  and  lexical 
definitions  agree  together.  And  it  is  no  less  groundless  to 
say,  that  "  the  views  of  Classic  Baptism  are  not  less  opposed 
to  those  of  lexicographers  than  they  are  opposed  to  those  of 
Baptists." 

But  the  special  reason  for  this  quotation  from  the  Herald, 
is,  that  the  views  held  by  Baptists  as  to  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  ("  one  meaning,  modal  term,  specific  act,  same  as  iSdizru), 
dyeing  excepted,")  may  be  before  us  on  the  high  authority 
of  the  Herald ;  for  respondents  are  already  beginning  to  deny 
that  such  views  are  held  by  our  Baptist  friends.  They  feel 
their  old  ground  slipping  from  under  them,  and  they  are 
casting  about  for  some  surer  resting-place. 

2.  The  argiimentum  ad  hominem. — This  is  not  formally  stated, 
but  we  are  left  to  conclude,  from  a  supposed  warrant  in  the 
exhibited  use  of  immerse,  that  this  word  has  only  a  literal, 
primary  meaning,  and  from  its  (supposed)  stated  relation  to 
baptize,  fixrther  to  conclude,  that  baptize  has  but  one,  literal, 
primary  meaning  throughout  its  usage. 

I  would  like  to  state  the  case  in  all  its  strength,  but,  really, 
when  I  attempt  to  raise  it  out  of  the  types,  it  so  falls  to  pieces 
that  I  am  embarrassed. 

"Mr.  Dale  gives  numerous  instances  of  the  figurative  use 
of  baptize — '  baptized  by  evils,  by  anger,  by  misfortune,  by 
wine,  by  taxes,  by  midnight,  &c.' — In  these  passages  there 
is  not  a  new  meaning  assigned  to  the  word,  but  simply  a 
figurative  use  of  the  term,  in  which  it  derives  all  its  perti- 
nency and  force  from  the  literal  and  well-known  import.  .  .  . 
Baptize  and  immerse  are  similar  terms.    Every  child  knows 


42  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

that  immerse  means  to  jmi  into  or  under  a  fluid,  and  it  is  im- 
possible by  any  sophistry  or  figurative  meanings  to  blind  his 
understanding  on  the  subject.  The  same  sophistry  which 
shows  that  baptism,  mersion,  may  be  efiected"  (in  unphysi- 
cal  matters)  "  without  putting  under  a  fluid,  would  show  that 
immersion  may  be  eftected '"  (in  nnphysical  matters)  "with- 
out putting  under  a  fluid;  while  every  man,  woman,  and 
child  in  the  land,  knows  immersion  means  to  put  under 
fluid,"  (in  physical  elements.) 

The  language  of  the  Herald  is  given  in  a  condensed  form, 
and  the  enclosed  words  are  introduced  in  order  to  show,  that 
the  reasoning  breaks  down  through  the  admixture  of  things 
unphysical  and  physical. 

To  show  that  "  immerse  undergoes  no  change  of  meaning," 
the  following  extracts  from  Classic  Baptism  are  made : 

" '  The  Secretary  of  War  is  immersed  in  business;  immersed 
in  traffic;  immersed  in  calculations;  immersed  in  politics; 
immersed  among  worm-eaten  folios;' — in  these  passages  the 
word  immerse  does  not  change  its  meaning.  It  has  reference, 
in  eveiy  case,  to  its  settled  import.  There  is  a  resemblance 
between  the  condition  of  an  object  placed  within  or  under  a 
fluid,  and  that  of  the  persons  said  in  the  above  quotations  to 
be  immersed.  AVhether  the  person  using  the  term  figura- 
tively thinks  of  its  tropical"  (literal  ?)  "sense,  is  of  no  conse- 
quence; the  analogy  is  the  ground  of  its  use  in  this  applica- 
tion. Does  this  figurative  use  of  the  word  cast  any  doubt 
on  its  meaning"  (to  put  in  or  under  a  fluid)?  "Not  the 
slightest." 

The  pointblank  contradiction  in  this  language  is  so  patent, 
that  it  is  truly  remarkable  that  it  should  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  the  Herald.  We  are  first  told,  that  "  in  these  pas- 
sages immerse  does  not  change  its  meaning,"  i.  c,  it  retains 
its  literal  meaning  to  put  in  or  under.  Next  we  are  told,  "  it 
has  reference  to  its  settled  import."  Is  a  "reference"  to  a 
thing  the  same  as  the  thing  itself?  And,  again,  we  are 
told  that  there  is  a  "  resemblance"  between,  &c.  How  does 
the  resemblance  of  one  thing  to  another  thing  make  it  that 
thing,  or  is  it  consistent  with  being  that  thing?     In  John 


BAPTIST    CRITICISMS    OF    CLASSIC    BAPTISM.  43 

Smith,  the  son,  there  may  be  a  "reference"  to  John  Smith, 
the  father,  because  his  name  is  taken  from  him.  But  this 
does  not  make  John  Smith,  the  sou,  John  Smitli,  the  father. 
There  may  be  a  "  resemblance  "  between  these  parties,  in 
feature,  form,  size,  gait,  character,  and  yet  John  Smith,  the 
son,  is  another  person  from  John  Smith,  the  fatlier.  Now, 
there  may  be  a  "  reference,"  and  a  "  resemblance,"  between 
immerse  figurative  and  immerse  literal,  and  they  not  be  the 
same  thing;  but,  on  the  contrar}*,  because  there  is  a  "  refer- 
ence," and  a  "  resemblance,"  their  distinct  existence  and 
character  is  proven  beyond  all  controversy. 

"We  are  farther  told,  that  "  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether 
the  person  using  the  term  figuratively  thinks  of  its  tropical" 
(literal)  "  sense ;  the  analogy  is  the  ground  of  its  use."  But 
if  the  literal  sense  ("  tropical,"  I  presume,  has  slipped  in 
through  inadvertence,  and  would  settle  the  matter  by  the 
admission  of  a  ^'^  turnecV  sense)  is  not  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker  or  writer,  then  "the  ground  of  the  analogy"  has 
vanished,  and  the  residuum  left  behind  is  the  new  meaning 
cut  loose  from  its  literal  relationship. 

In  conformity  with  this,  all  writers  on  figurative  language 
unite  in  saying,  that  when  the  literal  use  ceases  to  find  any 
place  in  the  mind,  the  figurative  use  has  secured  a  meaning 
of  its  own,  and  thenceforth  ceases  to  b-e  properly  designated 
as  figure.  Take  this  illustration :  A  carpenter  in  my  em- 
ploy says  he  has  been  putting  a  bonnet  over  my  parlor  win- 
dow\  The  ground  of  this  use  is  obvious;  but  that  ground 
had  utterly  slipped  from  out  of  the  mind  of  this  uneducated 
mechanic,  and  with  him,  in  carpentry,  "  bonnet"  meant  di- 
rectly, and  of  its  own  proper  force,  a  wooden  covering  to  jorotect 
a  window  from  sun  and  rain. 

But  the  Herald  thinks  that  shame  is  cast  on  this  doctrine, 
by  every  child  who  knows  that  immerse  has  but  one  literal 
meaning,  and  that  no  sophistry  can  blind  his  understanding. 

Let  us  experiment  with  this  child,  A  parent  says  to  him, 
"  My  child,  you  are  entering  upon  your  education,  and  I 
wish  you  to  be  immersed  in  your  books."  On  going,  sub- 
sequently, to  this  student's  room,  and  calling  for  him,  he  is 


44  JUDAIC   BAPTISxM. 

answered  from  "  in  and  under"  spelling  books,  geographies, 
grammars,  dictionaries,  and  systems  of  rhetoric,  logic,  and 
philosoph}',  "  Here  I  am,  father."  On  being  asked  what  he 
is  doing  there,  he  replies,  from  out  of  his  in-under  immer- 
sion, "  Yon  wished  me  to  be  '  immersed  in  my  books,'  and 
here  I  am  in  under  the  pile."  "  But,  my  child,  do  you  not 
know  that  '  immersed  in  hooks''  means  to  be  thoroughly  en- 
gaged in  their  study?"  "  Oh  no,  sir!  Every  child  knows 
that  immerse  means  j9izi  in,  under,  and  nothing  else;  for  I 
read  it  in  the  Herald,  and  '  no  sophistry  can  blind  my  under- 
standing.' "     So  much  for  "  child"  knowledge. 

Another  test  may  be  applied  to  the  position  of  the  Herald, 
that  immerse,  in  these  relations,  undergoes  no  change  of 
meaning.  It  is  this  :  the  meaning  of  a  word  can  alwajs  be 
intelligibly  substituted,  in  every  use  of  that  word,  for  the 
%vord  itself. 

Apply  this  test:  "  immersed  m=][)ut  in  or  under''  business, 
traffic,  calculations,  politics,  worm-eaten  folios,  &c.,  &c.  Does 
it  answer  ?  Is  it  possible  in  fact  ?  Is  it  conceivable  in  imagi- 
nation ?  Try  the  baptisms  by  the  same  test :  "  baptized  by  = 
ihorougJdu  subject  to  the  influence  of  evil,  anger,  misfortune, 
wine,  taxes,  midnight,"  &c.,  &c.  Could  adaptation  be  more 
perfect  ? 

In  this  interpretation  the  physical  investiture  is  rejected, 
(as  not  having  the  matter  of  "  reference"  or  "  resemblance,") 
and  thorough  subjection  to  influaice,  which  has  the  needed  "re- 
semblance," and  is  the  eft'ect  of  such  investiture,  is  taken. 

To  insist  that  a  word,  which  has  been  used  in  one  class 
of  relations,  and  has  secured  a  meaning  from  use  in  such 
relations,  must  carry  that  meaning  into  essentially  different 
relations,  and  maintain  it  there  unchanged  by  new  influences, 
is  to  war  against  the  philosophy  of  language,  against  facts 
in  every  department  of  the  physical,  intellectual,  moral,  and 
social  world,  and  is,  on  its  face,  absurd. 

A  hundred  stones  thrown  together  make,  in  such  relation, 
a  irllc.  The  same  stones  laid  in  consecutive  order  make,  in 
such  relation,  a  line.  When  buildcd  together  in  a  half  circle 
they  make,  in  such  relation,  an  arch. 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  45 

The  digits,  without  relation  to  each  other,  have  an  in- 
dependent value,  which  value  is  immediately  changed  on 
entering  into  arithmetical  relations.  A  cipher,  which  is  a 
nothing,  independently,  becomes  of  prodigious  value  on  en- 
tering into  such  relations.  It  converts  a  unit  (1)  into  a  mil- 
lion (1,000,000).  So,  by  the  unity  of  relationship  established 
by  such  bonds  as  these— (3+3)-=  6;  (3— 3)=^0;  (3x3)  =  9; 
(3-i-3)  =  l — the  same  characters,  which  have  a  settled  inde- 
pendent value,  become  utterly  and  diversely  changed. 

In  like  manner,  every  vowel,  which  has  an  independent 
value,  has  that  value  changed  by  entering  into  relation  with 
other  letters,  as  m«r,  map,  man,  mate,  &c.  So,  letters,  forming 
words  expressive  of  thought,  by  a  change  of  relation  among 
themselves,  change  entirely  the  thought,  e.  g.,  the  same  let- 
ters which,  in  a  certain  relation,  express  iime,  in  another  re- 
lation express  emitj  and  in  another  item,  and  in  another  mite^ 
and  in  another  /  met,  and  in  yet  another  me  it.  A  simple 
change  of  relation  produces  all  these  changes  of  thought. 

The  same  is  true  in  the  relation  of  words.  Some  of  these 
relations  are  of  simple  order,  as  "  he  is  here,"  or  "  here  he 
is,"  without  change  of  thought;  some  involve  a  change  in 
grammatical  construction,  as  "  the  boy  ate  the  pig,"  and 
"  the  pig  ate  the  boy;"  some  relations  of  words  are  organic, 
and  the  several  words  cannot  be  interpreted,  except  in  their 
organic  relations  to  each  other,  without  destroying  the  life, 
which  is  the  result  of  the  union. 

If  a  child  asks,  What  is  light?  and  is  pointed  to  the  rain- 
bow and  told,  "  Light  is  red,  and  orange,  and  yellow,  and 
green,  and  blue,  and  indigo,  and  violet,"  has  he  received  a 
truthful  answer  ?  No.  Light  is  neither  red,  nor  orange, 
nor  yellow,  nor  green,  nor  blue,  nor  indigo,  nor  violet;  nor 
is  it  red,  and  orange,  and  yellow,  and  green,  and  blue,  and 
indigo,  and  violet;  but  it  is  a  new  result  from  the  interac- 
tion of  these  colors  when  placed  in  certain  relations  to  each 
other;  each  communicating  and  receiving  a  modifying  in- 
fluence. So  it  is  with  words  in  organic  thought-relations. 
Independent  life  is  sacrificed  to  a  new  organic  life. 

In  the  words — "the  entire  crew  were  baptized" — there  is 


46  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

no  definite,  common  thought-life.  Plii-aseological  combina- 
tions of  words  must  not  be  interpreted  disjunctly,  but  con- 
junctly. You  ma}'  galvanize  the  article  and  adjective,  noun 
and  verb,  and  you  will  get  no  answer.  They  are  dead  as  to 
all  power  to  utter  au}^  complete  thought.  It  is  only  the  man 
wIjo  knows  what  "  sod"  means,  because  he  has  "  dug  soda 
many  a  time,"  that  will  think  otherwise.  The  sentence  must 
be  vitalized  by  union  with  an  adjunct  to  the  verb.  If  that 
adjunct  sliould  be — by  a  desirucilve  tempest,  then  we  will  have 
a  fearful  life  imparted  to  the  words.  If  it  should  be — by  ex- 
cesske  irine-dr inking,  then  we  should  have  a  very  shameful 
life  communicated  to  them.  But  whether  fearful  or  shame- 
ful, "baptized"  cannot  be  interpi-eted  disjuncth-,  but  must 
retain  its  organic  union  with  and  receive  its  life  from  its 
adjunct,  unless  we  would  stumble  over  "  Jacob  sod  pottage," 
or  "  hinder  the  resurrection." 

The  Herald  will,  I  trust,  perceive  that  the  condemnatory 
ad  hominem,  drawn  from  the  representation  made  by  Classic 
Baptism  of  baj)tize  and  immerse,  has  not  hurt,  and  I  am  sure 
its  esteemed  editors  will  accept  the  rebounding  blow  in  all 
good  nature. 

3.  The  arrjumentmn  ad  ahsurdmn. — The  ad  ahsurdum  part 
of  the  review  relates  to  "  tlie  conclusion."  It  belongs  to  the 
same  class  with  the  Lowell  machinery  and  whetstone.  To 
these  are,  however,  added  "  birth"  and  "  a  dose  of  ipecac;" 
there  is  not  added  a  big  pinch  of  snuff,  nor  stumping  a  sore  toe. 
Enough  has  been  said  of  this  "  absurdity,"  (mine  or  theirs,) 
and  I  add  no  more. 

I  must  notice,  however,  one  remarkable  error  in  this  con« 
nection.  It  is  the  idea  that  literal  baptisms  are  limited  to 
those  mentioned  on  page  235,  and  are  "  without  influence." 
The  literal  baptisms  extend  througb  the  fifty  following  pages, 
and  these  are  all  with  influence.  On  this  error  is  based  the 
more  important  one,  "  We  suppose  the  author  ascribes  the 
power  of  'thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  con- 
dition of  an  object,'  not  to  literal,  but  to  figurative  baptism." 
This  is  very  far  from  being  the  case.     The  conclusion  em- 


BAPTIST    CRITICISMS    OF   CLASSIC    BAPTISM.  47 

braces  Loth  the  acts  of  literal  baptism  and  the  influences  of 
figurative  baptism.  All  literal,  primary  baptisms  change  the 
condition  of  their  objects  by  placing  them  in  a  condition 
of  intnsposition.  Of  these  baptisms  there  are  two  classes  : 
(1.)  Such  as  are  not  influenced  by  their  intnsposition,  as  a 
rock.  (2.)  Such  as,  in  addition  to  simple  intusposition,  also, 
receive  influence  therefrom,  as  a  sponge,  &c. 

It  is  on  this  latter  class  of  literal  baptisms,  and,  specifically, 
on  the  thorough  influence  proceeding  from  them,  that  bap- 
tisms of  thorough  change  of  condition  eficcted  by  influence 
without  intnsposition,  are  grounded. 

Slips  like  this,  though  on  a  large  scale,  are  readily  ac- 
counted for  by  the  weekly  recurring  editorial  baptism. 

4.  Concessions. — 1.  "It  is  conceded  that,  if  'a  state  of  puri- 
fication' is  baptism,  then  it  is  baptism  whether  induced  by 
sprinkling,  magnetism,  fire,  or  anything  else.  But  if  it  be 
so,  it  does  not  follow  that  sprinkling  is  baptism.  Baptism, 
in  the  case  supposed,  denotes  the  efliect  of  sprinkling  and  not 
the  sprinkling  itself." 

All  of  which  is  most  orthodox  and  quite  to  the  purpose. 

2.  "It  is  conceded  that,  figuratively^  baptism  was  employed 
by  Greek  authors  to  denote  any  strong  controlling  influence 
by  w^hich  an  object  was  mersed  or  whelmed  ;  or  in  which 
there  was  a  resemblance  between  the  object  under  such  in- 
fluence and  an  object  baptized,  mersed,  iniusposed.  It  does 
not  follow,  that  because  an  object  under  a  controlling,  trans- 
forming, overwhelming  influence  is  said  to  be  baptized,  that 
every  influence  that  changes  '  character,  state,  or  condition,' 
baptizes  it." 

Thank  j'ou  kindly  for  this  truly  welcome  aid  and  comfort. 
To  what  class  of  influences  does  the  "emetic"  belong? 

3.  "It  is  conceded  that  the  Greeks  called  drunkenness  bap- 
tism; and  in  this  baptism  there  was  no  envelopment.  An 
intoxicated  man  was  baptized  by  wine.  It  was  not  the 
drinking  of  wine,  nor  the  operation  of  it,  but  the  condition — 
the  intoxication  resulting  from  its  use — that  was  called  the 
baptism." 


48  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

If  tlio  author  of  Classic  Baptism  be  not  content  with  these 
sweeping  concessions,  he  must  be  one  of  the  hardest  of  men 
to  please.  Tliey  cover,  directly  or  indirectly,  all  that  Classic 
Baptism  was  written  to  establish,  and  the  Baptist  theory  is, 
by  them,  numbered  among  the  things  that  were. 

The  Herald  concludes,  "  We  can  only  promise,  that  should 
life,  strength,  and  opportunity  be  allowed  us,  and  should  we 
be  able  to  procure  the  forthcoming  volumes,  we  will  give 
them  a  candid  notice.  Here,  for  the  present,  we  take  re- 
spectful leave  of  Mr.  Dale." 

THE   BAPTIST   QUARTERLY. 

The  Baptist  Quarterly  for  April,  1869,  contains  an  article 
(27  pp.)  entitled  "Dale's  Classic  Baptism.  By  Prof.  A.  C. 
Kendrick,  D.D.,  Rochester,  New  York." 

There  may  be  some  who  would  wish  to  know  what  would 
be  said  from  such  a  quarter.  A  theological  seminary  and 
its  professorate,  are  naturally  suggestive  of  a  pure  and  loving 
atmosphere,  while  a  Quarterly  lifts  up  the  thoughts  to  what 
is  weighty  with  truth  and  dignified  in  bearing.  How  the 
practical  outworking  of  things  harmonizes  with  their  popu- 
lar estimation,  may  be  learned  from  the  following 

QUOTATIONS, 

"  Philological  thimble-rigging,  tricks  of  legerdemain,  dex- 
terous, or  would-be  dexterous  manipulation, — of  these  feats 
of  petty  sleight  of  hand  Mr.  Dale's  book  is  full ;  an  elaborate 
and  persistent  etlbrt  to  trick  ^a-rilu>  out  of  its  honest  mean- 
ing.— Without  learning,  without  }thilosophy,  and  without  can- 
dor.— As  ignorant  as  if  he  lived  in  another  planet. — Either 
ignorance  scarcely  less  than  disgraceful,  or  something  less 
complimentary. — The  slenderest  acquaintance  with  critics 
and  commentators. — As  barren  verbal  criticism  as  it  was  ever 
our  misfortune  to  read,  or  any  sensible  man  to  write. — Such 
pitiful  drivel,  and  the  book  is  plethoric  with  it. — Phastasma- 
goria  of  contradictions. — Strange  compound  of  folly  and  ir- 
reverence.— Incredible  puerility. — Is  there  another  living 
man  out  of  the  idiot's  asylum. — Impertinent  and  insulting. — 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  49 

Spare  liis  scoffings. — Has  not  taken  a  single  honest  step. — 
Largely  false  and  ecieutifically  worthless. — Pure  superfluity 
and  grand  impertinence. — Humanity  has  stood  him  instead 
of  knowledge.^Sense  or  nonsense. — Verbalmanipulations. 
— Skilful  avoidance  of  correctness,  elegance,  and  sense. — By 
such  a  one  as  Mr.  Dale. — Descend  a  great  many  degrees 
before  getting  near  the  level  of  the  expounder  of  Classic 
Baptism. — A  man  who  has  neither  taste  nor  scholarship. — 
Dreary  and  barren  criticism. — His  feeble  ridicule  recoils  on 
the  captious  critic. — Monstrous  doctrine. — An  absurdity  too 
great  to  need  a  moment's  argumentation. — Uniform  render- 
ing intentionally  false,  or  intentionally  unmeaning. — The 
doctrine  is  unphilosophical  and  false. — A  spirit  of  narrow 
and  bitter  partisanship. — A  scholarly  attitude  is  apparently 
beyond  the  conception  of  Mr.  Dale. — His  book  one  half 
false,  one  half  irrelevant. — Partly  false  and  partly  nonsense. 
—  With  his  accustomed  insolence." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  eat  an  entire  joint  of  meat  to  learn 
whether  it  is  tainted  or  not.  These  morceaux  are  enough 
to  test  the  quality  of  this  "joint."  Boiled  down  they  leave 
this  twofold  residuum :  1.  Mr.  Dale  is  a  fool.  2.  His  book 
is  a  he. 

QUOTATIONS    IN    ANOTHER   DIRECTION. 

"Nobody  doubts  that  ^d-rut  may  mean  to  dip.  BazriZuj  be- 
came naturally  applied  ordinarily  to  immersions  of  a  more 
formal  and  longer  character,  while  /Sa'srw  ordinarily  denoted 
the  lighter  and  the  shorter. — Thus  arose  the  distinction  sug- 
gested by  Dr.  Dagg,  giving  a  partial  foundation  for  the 
dogma  of  Mr.  Dale. — We  repeat,  none  will  deny  the  partial 
truth  of  Mr.  Dale's  distinction. — The  submersion  of  wine 
{no  matter  how,  by  pouring,  if  Mr.  Dale  pleases)  in  sea-water. 
— It  is  not  a  dipping  that  our  Lord  instituted, — He  did  not 
command  to  put  people  into  the  loater  and  take  them  out  again^ 
but  to  put  them  wider  the  water.  "We  repeat,  with  emphasis, 
for  the  consideration  of  our  Baptist  brethren  :  Christian  bap- 
tism is  no  mere  literal  and  senseless  "dipping,'^  assuring  the 

4 


50  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

frightened  candidate  of  a  safe  exit  from  the  water. — Grant- 
ing that  i^d--(u  always  engages  to  take  its  subject  out  of  the 
water  (which  we  do  not  believe)  and  that  /Jam'Cw  never  does 
engage  to  take  its  subject  out  of  the  water,  (which  we  readily 
admit.) — "We  let  /SarrnTw  take  us  into  the  water,  and  can  trust 
to  men's  instinctive  love  of  life,  their  common  sense,  their 
power  of  volition  and  normal  muscular  action,  to  bring  them 
safely  out. — The  law  of  God  in  Revelation  sends  the  Baptist 
down  into  the  waters  of  immersion;  when  it  is  accomplished, 
the  equally  imperative  law  of  God  in  nature  brings  him  safely 
out." 

Subjecting  these  passages  to  a  sublimation  we  get  this 
result : 

1.  "  There  is  an  annoying  streak  of  truth  (got  in  there, 
somehow,  by  the  help  of  the  devil,  or  of  Dr.  Dagg),  running 
through  *that  lie.' " 

2.  "  Make  all  haste  to  square  up  your  notions  of  baptism 
by  this  streak  of  truth.  Baptist  brethren !  I  warn  3'ou,  once 
and  again,  that  you  must  get  rid  of  dip.  Dip  puts  into  the 
water  and  takes  out;  baptize  never  takes  out  of  the  water  ivhat 
it  once  puts  in.  Abandon  dipping  and  go  down  under  the 
water,  trusting  to  'nature  and  muscle'  to  bring  you  out. 
Then,  when  '  this  fool '  comes  along  with  his  thunder  we  will 
be  ready  for  him." 

One  of  my  theological  professors,  with  whom  a  universal 
courtesy  was  as  the  breath  of  his  life,  once  said  to  me:  "If 
the  devil  were  to  pass  me  and  salute  me  courteously,  I  would 
courteously  return  the  salute."  He  did  not  say,  that  if  the 
devil  came  with  horns  down,  and  tail  up,  and  hoof  stamping, 
and  breath  sulphurous,  that  he  would  have  any  salutation 
for  him.  I  suppose  he  would  get  out  of  his  way.  I  do  not 
know  that  I  can  do  better  than  to  follow  his  example.  I 
have,  therefore,  no  salutation  for  the  "  Professor  of  the  Bap- 
tist Theological  Seminary,  of  Rochester,  New  York,"  (not 
even  "a  railing  accusation,")  but  proceed  to  get  out  of  his 
way. 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  51 

Having,  therefore,  no  further  need  for  this  double  distil- 
lation of  "Dale's  Classic  Baptism,  by  A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Greek,  Baptist  Theological  Seminar}',  Roches- 
ter, !N'ew  York, — Philadelphia,  American  Baptist  Publica- 
tion Society,  530  Arch  Street,"  I  make  it  over,  all  and  par- 
ticular, to  whom  it  may  concern,  not  forgetting,  in  especial, 
"his  accustomed  insolence." 

CRITICISMS    FOUNDED    IN    MISCONCEPTION. 

Any  one  who  will  look  through  the  criticisms  now  pre- 
sented, will  perceive,  that,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  any  mate- 
rial point,  they  are  directed  not  against  the  positions  of 
Classic  Baptism,  but  against  something  else  widely  different 
from  them. 

There  are  controversial  artifices  for  converting  granite  ob- 
stacles into  straw  figments;  but  I  do  not  believe  that  they 
have  been  used  in  this  case.  Nor  will  I  say,  that  the  miscon- 
ception is  due  wholly  to  others,  and  in  no  wise  to  myself;  but 
to  whomsoever  it  may  belong,  it  is  desirable  that  all  ground 
for  its  continuance  should,  if  possible,  be  removed.  Let  me, 
then,  advert  to  the  more  important  points,  and  indicate  their 
true  import. 

1.  It  is  objected,  that  [ia-rriZm  is  made  to  express  condition 
onhj,  all  act  being  eliminated. 

The  true  position  as  taken  is,  the  word  expresses  condition 
of  intusposition,  involving  some  act  adequate  for  its  accom- 
plishment, but  not  expressing  or  requiring  any  particular 
form  of  act.  And  in  this  there  is  no  singularity.  It  is  com- 
mon to  all  words  of  the  same  class. 

2.  It  is  objected,  that  one  word  has  been  used  to  translate 
ySarrctw  throughout,  and  therefore,  it  must  have  one  meaning. 

The  truth  is,  that  one  word  is  used  in  all  cases  where  the 
one  Greek  word  is  used,  not  as  its  translation,  but  as  its  rep- 
resentative. It  being  distinctly  stated,  that  neither  this  word 
(inerse),  nor  any  other  word  in  the  English  language,  can,  in 
one  meaning,  translate  the  Greek  word ;  that  this  will  be 
manifest  to  every  reader,  who  will,  therefore,  be  required  to 
modify  the  meaning  of  this  one  word  to  meet  the  exigency 


62  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

of  the  passage,  and  so,  be  made  to  feel  that  the  one  Greek 
word  has,  in  usage,  undergone  a  correspondent  change.  It 
was  farther  stated,  that  the  unusual  word  "  merse"  was  taken, 
because  it  would  be  more  readily  susceptible  of  such  modi- 
fications than  any  word  already  familiar  in  a  fixed  meaning. 
(See  pp.  129-134,  C.  B.) 

3.  It  is  objected,  that  Classic  Baptism  disregards  the  gene- 
rally received  interpretation  of  language,  by  assigning  a  di- 
rect meaning  to  phraseology,  which  should  be  understood 
figuratively. 

The  objection  is  groundless.  There  is  no  departure  from 
the  principles  laid  down  by  accredited  writers  on  figurative 
language.  Metaphorical  language  is  as  truly  subject  to  laws 
and  interpretation  as  is  literal  language.  It  has,  also,  a 
meaning  as  distinct,  and  as  susceptible  of  development,  as 
language  used  in  physical  relations. 

In  a  metaphor  there  is  an  untruth  stated  according  to  a 
purely  disjunct  verbal  interpretation.  But  this  mode  of  in- 
terpretation is  as  false  as  is  the  conception  deduced  by  its 
operation.  *' Achilles  is  a  lion,"  is  an  untrue  statement  only 
under  an  erroneous  interpretation.  Every  metaphor  is  self- 
corrective  in  its  terms.  Achilles  and  lion  qualify  each  other. 
In  their  relation  as  the  utterance  of  a  sane  man  to  sane  men, 
they  say, — The  meaning  is  not  that  a  man  is  a  wild  beast; 
but  that  there  is  something  in  this  peerless  warrior,  which 
resembles  something  in  this  king  of  the  forest;  which  thing 
you  are  to  find  out  and  receive  as  the  meaning  designed  to 
be  conveyed  by  this  language.  In  the  metaphor,  "Great 
Britain  has  a  watery  bulwark;"  there  is  an  inconsistency 
between  "water"  and  "bulwark"  interpreted  independently; 
but  qualified  by  their  relation  to  Great  Britain  in  its  island 
character,  the  upraised  stone  or  earth  disappears  from  bul- 
wark, and  the  residual  idea  of  ■protection  remains,  and  assim- 
ilates with  flowing  water.  And  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is, 
and  is  nothing  else,  than  that  Great  Britain  has  a  protection 
in  its  surrounding  seas. 

In  such  language  the  mind  finds  pleasure  in  the  boldness 
of  the  statement,  in  being  aroused  to  consider  and  deduce 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  53 

the  truth  designed,  latent  amid  incongruities,  in  its  dis- 
covery of  that  sought  for,  and  with  its  adaptation  to  the  end 
required. 

There  is  a  conundrum  character  belonging  to  the  metaphor, 
which  the  hearer  or  reader  is  called  upon  to  solve.  It  may  be 
put  in  this  form  :  "  Why  is  Achilles  like  a  lion  ?  "  "  Why 
ma}^  Great  Britain  be  said  to  have  a  watery  bulwark?" 
"  Why  is  the  London  Times  the  thunderer  ?  "  But  as  every 
conundrum  has  a  definite  solution  which  is  its'meaning,  so, 
every  metaphor  has  its  solution  and  definite  meaning,  which 
cannot  be  allowed  to  evaporate  in  undefined  shadow,  or  to 
speak  erroneously  under  a  mistaken  interpretation.  Every 
metaphor  presents  to  us  terms  between  which  there  are  many 
incongruities,  and  one  (at  least)  point  of  resemblance.  The 
incongruities  are  to  be  thrown  aside  as  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose ;  and  the  resemblance,  alone,  to  be  taken  as  the  residual 
grain  of  gold  required. 

Classic  Baptism  (pp.  294,  299),  refers  to  the  following  cases 
of  baptism :  "  Cnemon,  perceiving  that  he  was  deeply  grieved 
and  baptized  by  the  calamity,  and  fearing  lest  he  may  do 
himself  some  injury,  removes  the  sw^ord  .privately."  "The 
relation  of  your  w^anderings,  often  postponed,  as  you  know, 
because  the  casualties  still  baptized  you,  you  could  not  keep 
for  a  better  time  than  the  present." 

The  objectors  say,  that  these  baptisms  must  be  interpreted 
as  figure.  Well,  Classic  Baptism  does  not  say,  that  they 
may  not  be  so  interpreted,  in  a  common  sense  way.  Its 
denial  is,  that  any  sound  interpretation  will  put  these  'parties 
under  water  in  fact  or  in  figure.  It  does  not  deny,  that  the 
true  meaning  of  the  passage  may  be  reached  by  tracing  a 
resemblance  in  some  respect,  between  the  condition  of  an 
object  induced  by  a  state  of  mersion,  and  the  condition  of 
these  persons  induced  by  calamity  and  casualty. 

But  in  any  interpretation,  it  must  be  noted  at  the  outset, 
that  these  baptized  conditions  were  not  transient,  but  pro- 
tracted through  days,  weeks,  or  months.  This  settles'  the 
matter  as  to  these  living  men  being  regarded  as  being, 
through  these  periods,  under  water,  oil,  milk,  blood, or  marsh- 


54  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

mud.  The  resemblance  is  between  something  in  their  con- 
dition 7wt  thus  covered,  and  something  in  the  condition  of 
an  object  which  is  so  covered.  A  farther  point  settled  is, 
that  the  resemblance  is  not  to  the  covered  eondit'iou  of  a  bap- 
tized object,  for  there  is  no  such  existent  condition  effected 
by  calamity.  The  resemblance,  then,  must  be  sought  in  some 
effect  produced  by  a  covered  condition,  and  some  effect  pro- 
duced in  the  condition  of  one  affected  by  calamity. 

E'ow,  the  specific  effects  of  a  covered  condition  in  water, 
oil,  milk,  blood,  marsh-mud,  &c.,  are  various;  and  as  the 
metaphorical  condition  is  one,  the  resemblance  cannot  be  to 
all.  It  is  just  as  clear,  that  the  reference  cannot  be  to  any 
specific  influence ;  because  there  is  no  reference  to  one  more 
than  to  another.  Neither  can  the  resemblance  be  to  that 
eflect  which  is  common  to  them  all,  namely,  the  suffocation 
of  a  human  being  by  protracted  mersion ;  for  there  is  no  cor- 
responding suffocation  to  which  such  effect  should  be  like. 

There  is  but  one  other  point  in  which  fluids,  semi-fluids, 
and  readily  penetrable  substances,  unite  in  common  effect 
upon  enclosed  objects,  and  that  is  a  controlling  influence 
stripped  of  specialty.  Such  an  eflect  finds  its  correspond- 
ence in  the  completest  manner  in  both  parties  spoken  of  by 
Heliodorus.  They  have  long  been  in  a  condition  induced  by 
the  complete  influence  of  *'  calamity"  and  "casualty."  And 
baptize  is  not  only  not  used  to  express  a  covered  condition, 
real  or  imaginary,  on  the  part  of  these  sufferers,  but  it  is 
not  used  to  express  the  covered  condition  of  the  object;  the 
sentiment  of  the  metaphor  has  nothing  to  do  with  covering, 
but  with  the  effect  resulting  from  such  covering. 

Thus,  if  this  phraseology  be  treated  as  designed  figure,  we 
are  compelled  to  cast  away  everything  but  controlling  influ- 
ence. 

AVhcther  it  ought  to  be  so  treated,  or  whether  it  should  be 
interpreted  as  directly  expressive  of  influence,  is  another 
question. 

Some  might  choose  to  interpret  as  metaphor  the  state- 
ments, "A  people  cnligJdened  by  education  are  capable  of  self- 
government,"  ^' Established  in  rectitude  by  Christianity,  they 


BAPTIST   CRITICISxMS    OF   CLASSIC    BAPTISM.  55 

live  in  peace."  But,  I  presume,  there  are  not  many  who 
would  quarrel  with  those  who  should  prefer  to  say,  metaphor 
has  vanished  from  such  language;  and  it  conveys  its  senti- 
ment not  through  a  resemblance  to  sunlight,  or  a  building 
founded  on  a  rock,  but  makes  direct  announcement  of  the 
influences  of  education  and  Christianity. 

There  is  no  more  ground  for  complaint,  when  it  is  de- 
clared, "baptized  by  calamity,"  and  "by  casualty,"  &c.  &c., 
express  directly,  and  not  merely  through  resemblance,  their 
legitimate  influence. 

These  were  every-day  expressions  among  the  Greeks,  and 
we  must  remember,  "There  is  very  little,  comparatively,  of 
energy  produced  by  any  metaphor  that  is  in  common  use, 
and  already  familiar  to  the  hearer.  Indeed,  what  were  origi- 
nally the  boldest  metaphors,  are  become,  by  long  use,  virtu- 
ally, proper  terms."  (Whately,  Rhetoric,  p.  195.)  "And  as 
to  ordinary  metaphors,  and  which  are  commonly  very  numer- 
ous in  every  tongue,  the  metaphorical  meaning  comes  to  be  as 
really  ascertained  by  custom  in  the  particular  language,  as 
the  original,  or  what  is  called  the  literal,  meaning  of  the 
word."  "They  have  nothing  of  the  effect  of  metaphor  upon 
the  hearer.  On  the  contrary,  they  suggest,  like  proper  terms, 
directly  to  the  mind,  without  the  intervention  of  any  image,  the 
ideas  which  the  speaker  intended  to  convey  by  them."  "  The 
invariable  effect  of  very  frequent  use  being  to  convert  the 
metaphorical  into  a  proper  meaning."  (Campbell,  Philosophy 
of  Rhetoric,  pp.  344,  348.)  Campbell  farther  states,  (p.  346,) 
"It  is  very  remarkable,  that  the  usages  in  different  languages 
diflfer,  insomuch  that  the  same  trope  will  suggest  opposite 
ideas  in  different  tongues."  ISTow,  both  the  verbal  form  and 
thought  of  the  metaphor  under  consideration  difters  in  the 
Greek  and  English  languages.  "Immersed  in  calamity" 
makes  calamity  the  element  and  inness  the  basis  of  the 
thought;  but  "baptized  6j/ calamity,"  makes  calamity  the 
agency  and  controlling  power  the  basis  of  the  sentiment. 
Inness  is  neither  expressed  nor  necessarily  implied.  "Bap- 
tized in  a  storm"  denotes  destruction  daring  the  continuance 
of  a  storm;  "baptized  bg  a  storm"  denotes  the  destructive 


56  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

power  of  the  storm.  "  Jotapata  baptized  in.  the  departure  of 
Josephus"  is  nonsense;  '■'- baptized  by  the  departure  of  Jose- 
phus"  expresses  the  ruhious  influence  consequent  on  his  de- 
parture. The  English  does  not  use  "  immersed  hj  calamity  "  to 
denote  the  agency  of  calamity,  but  overwlielmed  by.  Nor  does 
it  say  ^^  immersed  wito  calamity ;  "  m-mersed  expresses  position, 
into  expresses  movement.  Their  conjunction  would  be  incon- 
gruous. The  English  use  of  immerse  and  the  Greek  usage  of 
/SaTTTc'Cw  are  bj^  no  means  parallel,  and  "the  trope  founded  on 
these  words  has  essential  difference  in  the  different  tongues." 

The  objection  that  novelty  of  principle  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  figurative  language  has  been  introduced  into  Classic 
Baptism,  is  surely  without  any  just  foundation. 

4.  It  is  objected  that  "  the  conclusion  "  of  Classic  Baptism 
is  too  broad ;  that  there  are  many  things  which  exert  a  com- 
plete influence  in  changing  condition  which  could  not,  prop- 
erly, be  said  to' baptize. 

This  objection  is  grounded  both  in  a  failure  of  compre- 
hension and  of  discrimination. 

There  has  been  a  failure  to  comprehend  both  acts  and  in- 
fluences as  causative  of  changes  of  condition,  and  a  failure 
to  discriminate  between  the  characteristic  diflerences  in  the 
changed  conditions,  effected,  respectively,  by  act  and  influ- 
ence. 

The  only  change  of  condition  effected  by  "act,"  with  which 
Classic  Baptism  has  anything  to  do,  is  that  resulting  from 
an  object  being  intusposed  within  some  readily  penetrable 
medium. 

If,  now,  the  act  of  sharpening  a  knife  by  a  whetstone 
changes  the  condition  of  the  knife  by  piittiny  it  under  the  water; 
or  if  a  power-loom,  by  its  action,  pats  a  bale  of  cotton  into  the 
mill-dam,  then  they  will  come  within  the  range  of  the  "con- 
clusion," and  may  be  employed  to  test  its  correctness;  but 
not  till  then. 

In  like  manner  "the  influences"  of  Classic  Baptism  have 
their  limitation.  They  are  not  only  complete  in  their  con- 
trolling power,  but  they  assimilate  the  condition  of  the  bap- 
tized object  to  their  own  peculiarities.     Thus,  an  intoxicat- 


BAPTIST   CRITICISMS   OF   CLASSIC   BAPTISM.  57 

ing  influence  produces  an  intoxicated  condition ;  a  soporific 
influence  produces  a  soporific  condition  ;  a  stupefying  influ- 
ence produces  a  stupefied  condition;  an  oppressive  influence 
produces  an  oppressed  condition. 

If,  now,  the  amputating  knife  influences  the  condition  of 
the  patient,  assimilaiing  it  to  the  characteristics  of  the  cutting  steely 
then  it  may  be  employed  to  test  the  doctrine  whether  all  in- 
fluences, like  those  of  which  Classic  Baptism  treats,  may  be 
justly  said  to  baptize. 

Every  conclusion  should  be  broad  enough  to  include  all 
the  particulars  from  which  it  is  deduced;  it  should  not  be 
expected  to  have  greater  breadth. 

The  brevity  with  which  the  conclusion  of  Classic  Baptism 
is  stated  might  render  it  obscure,  or  apparently  erroneous, 
to  one  who  had  not  thoughtfully  read  the  volume  on  which 
that  conclusion  rests;  but,  none  others,  I  think,  would  find 
any  embarrassment  in  its  statement. 

It  might  be  amplified  thus:  "Whatever  act  is  capable  of 
thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  condition,  of  any 
object,  by  i)lacing  it  in  a  state  of  'physical  intusposition,  is  capable 
of  baptizing  that  object;  and  whatever  infiitence  is  capable  of 
thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  condition,  of 
any  object,  by  j^ervading  it  and  making  it  subject  to  its  own  charac- 
teristic, is  capable  of  baptizing  that  object;  and  by  such 
changes  of  character,  state,  or  condition,  these  acts  and  influ- 
ences do,  in  fact,  baptize  their  objects." 

There  is  nothing  in  this  more  amplified  form,  other  than 
what  was  in  contemplation  when  the  briefer  form  was  written, 
and  which  is  stated  everywhere  in  the  preceding  pages  of  the 
volume. 

As  there  are  "acts"  which  change  the  condition  of  their 
objects  without  changing  it  in  that  way  here  contemplated, 
to  wit,  by  placing  them  in  intusposition,  and  are,  therefore, 
excluded  from  consideration;  so,  there  are  "influenced" 
which  change  condition,  but  not  after  the  manner  of  those 
with  which  we  have  here  to  do,  and  are  therefore  excluded, 
in  like  manner. 


58  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

All  the  objections  offered  against  tlie  positions  and  con- 
clusions of  Classic  Baptism  have,  now,  been  presented  and 
considered. 

In  view  of  them,  we  are  fully  warranted  in  concluding, 
that  those  positions  and  conclusions  are  substantially  correct. 

By  them  we  are  led  to  view  the  word  under  an  essentially 
different  aspect  from  which  it  has,  heretofore,  been  usually 
considered.  Between  a  word  which  is  expressive  of  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  mere  form  of  a  transitory  act,  and  a  word 
which  is  expressive  of  a  condition  characterized  by  complete- 
ness of  envelopment,  fulness  of  influence,  and  without  limi- 
tation of  continuance,  there  must  be  the  broadest  distinction, 
not  only  in  primary  import,  but  also  in  development. 

It  has  appeared  to  me  to  be  all-essential,  that  we  should 
reach  clearness  of  views  as  to  the  essential  character  of  the 
disputed  word  when  used  in  the  classics,  before  entering 
upon  its  usage  within  the  sphere  of  revealed  religion. 

This,  now,  has  been  measurably  accomplished.  We  will, 
therefore,  proceed  to  follow  the  word  among  Jewish  writers, 
and  among  Jewish  ceremonials,  to  note  any  modifications 
which  it  may  undergo,  either  by  limitation,  amplification,  or 
specific  application. 

The  separate  examination  of  each  case  of  baptism  will 
necessarily  involve  a  frequent  reference  to  the  same  prin- 
ciples of  exposition  and  of  appeal  to  the  same  illustrative 
facts.  There  are  advantages,  however,  in  this  course  which 
greatly  counterbalance  the  disadvantages. 

The  quotations  of  Patristic  writers  are  made,  almost  with- 
out exception,  from  the  latest  Paris  edition,  published  under 
the  editorial  charge  of  the  Abbe  Mign^. 

The  quotations  are  limited,  with  rare  exceptions,  to  writers 
of  the  first  four  centuries. 


JEWISH    WRITERS. 


(M) 


JOSEPHUS-PHILO-SON  OF  SIRACH. 


Jewish  writers  exhibit  the  most  thorough  knowledge 
of,  and  the  most  entire  familiarity  with,  the  Greek  word 
BAnTfZa. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  considering  the  limited  ex- 
tent of  their  writings,  that  they  should  furnish  an  illustra- 
tion of  every  phase  of  usage  presented  by  the  Classic  Greek 
writers. 

With  this  complete  mastery  of  the  word,  we  may  feel  the 
most  entire  confidence  that,  if  they  carry  the  word  into  any 
field  of  thought  unknown  to  the  Classics,  any  such  new 
usage  or  application  will  be  found  to  be  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  fundamental  character  of  the  word. 

In  order  that  the  identity  of  conception  and  usage,  as  to 
this  word,  by  Jew  and  Greek,  may  be  at  once  obvious,  the 
same  classification  of  passages  will  be  made  now,  as  that 
which  was  presented  in  Classic  Baptism. 

BAHTIZQ. 

INTUSPOSITION  WITHOUT  INFLUENCE. 

PRIMARY  USE. 

Tijv  T£   Se^cdv  ivareivaq,  a»?  (j.rjdiva  Xaffslv,   vXov  e^c   '^''jv   iaorou   Cfpayr^v 
tiSaTTTlffs  TO  ^icpoq. 

And  stretching  out  his  right  band,  so  as  to  escape  notice  by 
none,  he  mersed  the  entire  sword  into  his  throat. 

Josephus,  Jewish  War,  ii,  18. 

This  is  the  case  of  Simon,  a  distinguished  Jew,  who,  after 
he  had  slain  his  parents,  wife,  and  children,  to  prevent  their 

(61) 


62  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

falling  into  the  power  of  the  enemy,  committed  suicide.  All 
the  facts  of  the  case,  the  act  performed,  and  the  issue  reached, 
are  well  known. 

In  what  aspect  is  ^ar.riZco  presented  ?  Does  it  announce 
the  performance  of  a  definite,  modal  act?  Dr.  Conant  says 
yes,  and  translates  jjlimge.  This  translation  his  fi-iend  Booth 
would  probahly  accept  without  feeling  that,  thereb}',  "  his 
sentiments  were  made  ridiculous."  And  he  would  be  right. 
Baptist  sentiments  are  not  made  "  ridiculous  "  by  speaking 
of  a  sword  "  plunged,"  instead  of  a  sword  "  mersed."  But 
the  difficulty  with  "Baptist  sentiments"  is,  that  when  they 
once  translate  a  word  which  has  but  "  one  meaning  through 
all  Greek  literature"  by  "plunge,"  its  ghost  will  ever  re- 
turn, unbidden,  to  trouble  them.  And  this  is  not  only  vex- 
atious, but,  as  the  venerable  Booth  declares,  makes  their 
sentiments  "  ridiculous."  It  is,  also,  obvious  that,  while 
"  plunge  "  very  properly  represents  the  act  performed  in  this 
case,  it  does  not  represent  ^a-Kri%u) ;  for  if  Simon  had,  after 
the  example  of  Saul,  fixed  the  hilt  of  his  sword  upon  the 
ground,  mx^  fallen  upon  it,  the  sword  would  have  been  equally 
baptized — mersed;  but  the  act  of  "plunging"  would  have 
wholly  disappeared,  and,  according  to  Baptist  translation, 
/Sa—tTw  would  denote  the  definite  act  "  fall  upon."  In  fact, 
it  expresses  neither ;  while  it  accepts  the  one,  or  the  other, 
or  a  score  beside,  as  equally  competent  to  meet  its  demand 
for  a  state  of  intusposition  for  its  object. 

It  is  no  less  obvious,  that  this  intusposition  is  without  in- 
fluence upon  the  sword.  Simon  is  slain;  the  sword  is  unaf- 
fected. Whether  the  sword  be  sheathed  in  Simon's  throat, 
or  in  its  own  scabbard,  it  is  equally  unaftectcd  by  the  mer- 
sion.  It  is  important  to  notice  this,  because  ba{)tisms  charac- 
terized by  influence  without  envelopment  could  never  origi- 
nate in  such  sword  baptism,  but  must  originate  in  another 
class  of  baptisms,  viz.,  baptisms  attended  by  influence  upon 
the  objects  baptized. 


BAPTISM   WITH    INFLUENCE.  63 

INTUSPOSITION  WITH  INFLUENCE. 

1.  Ba~TiaOivTv<;  yap  rj[j.wv  too  TtXoiou  xard  iiioov  rdv  ^Adptav. 

Life  of  Josephus,  §  3. 

2.  Ourzoj  ;jJ).?.nvTO(;  [iaTzriXBffOat  too  fT/.dcpouq.  Jewish  Antiq.,  ix,  10. 

3.  Meziojpo':  UTztpaftOtiq  6  y.)Jjdu)v  ifidnriirtv.  "  "        iii,  9. 

4.  KaX  ahv  aonnt;  ifianrH^ovro  a/Afttn.  *'  "        iii,  10. 

5.  Tu)v  dk  fja-TKrOi'^Ttuv  zoh<;  a^aveoovrai;.  "  "        iii,  10. 

1.  Our  vessel  having  been  mersed  in  the  midst  of  the  Adriatic. 

2.  The  vessel  being  on  the  point  of  being  mci'sed. 

3.  A  lofty  billow  rising  above  mersed  them. 

4.  And  were  mersed  with  their  vessels. 

5.  But  of  the  mersed  those  rising  to  the  surface. 

PAETICULAR  CASES  EXAMINED. 
BAPTISM   WITH   INFLUENCE. 

1.  "For  our  vessel  having  been  mersed  in  the  midst  of 
the  Adriatic,  being  in  number  about  six  hundred,  we  swam 
through  the  entire  niglit." 

In  the  transaction  here  referred  to,  Josephus  was  himself 
a  party.  The  fact  is  similar  to  those  related  in  CMassic  Bap- 
tism and  described  by  the  same  word.  A  ship  is  lost  at  sea 
and  sinks  to  the  bottom,  and  is  said  to  be  baptized — mersed. 
The  form  of  the  act  involved  in  this  case  is  invested  with  no 
doubt.  It  is  sinking.  And  inasmuch  as  the  form  of  act  in 
sinking  is  not  the  same  as  the  form  of  act  in  plunging,  we,  at 
once,  see  that  the  attempt  to  translate  ftaizTiXaj  by  a  word  ex- 
pressive of  act,  definite  in  form,  is  a  mistake.  Conant  trans- 
lates, submerged.  In  doing  so,  he  abandons  that  modality  of 
form  which  he  had  incorporated  in  his  translation  of  the  pre- 
ceding case,  and  adopts  a  word  expressive  of  condition. 

It  should,  also,  be  noted,  that  in  this  baptism  there  is  no 
recovery  of  the  baptized  object.  It  remains  in  the  Adriatic 
to  this  day.  The  influence  attendant  upon  this  baptism  was 
entirely  destructive  in  its  character.  The  facts,  throughout, 
indicate  our  interpretation  of  the  word,  while  they  are  ruin- 
ous to  "  the  theory." 


64  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

2.  "  The  vessel  being  on  the  point  of  being  mersed." 
Josephus  gives  an  account  of  Jonah's  disobedience,  his 

flight  to  Joppa,  his  embarkation  on  shipboard,  the  storm 
which  arose  during  the  voyage  to  Tarsus,  and  the  momently 
threatened  destruction  of  the  ship,  which  he  describes  by 
saying,  it  was  "  on  the  point  of  being  bapiized." 

The  storm  neither  threatened  to  dip  or  to  plunge  the  vessel. 
It  did  threaten  to  baptize,  to  swallow  up,  to  engulf,  to  raerse, 
to  place  in  a  condition  within  the  swelling  waves  without 
recovery.  Out  of  this  threatened  condition,  full  of  destruc- 
tive influence,  the  vessel  was  delivered  by  the  sacrifice  of  the 
guilt}'  prophet. 

The  Baptist  theory,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  finds 
no  support  in  this  transaction.  Intusposition,  without  limita- 
tion of  act,  or  time,  or  influence,  squarely  covers  the  case. 

3.  "  The  lofty  billow,  rising  above,  mersed  them." 

The  Jews,  to  escape  the  Romans,  after  the  capture  of 
Joppa,  betook  themselves  to  their  vessels,  and  put  out  from 
the  shore.  A  storm,  however,  arose,  which  proved  very  de- 
structive to  their  shipping.  Attempting  to  escape  from  the 
rocky  shore,  and  the  certain  death  which  there  awaited  them, 
they  turned  toward  the  inrolling  swell  of  the  sea,  and  "  the 
lofty  billows,  rising  above  their  vessels,  mersed  them."  The 
pressure  of  the  storm-driven  waves  and  the  weight  of  the 
water  falling  upon  their  frail  boats  sank  them. 

Such  cases  of  baptism  make  havoc  of  the  Baptist  concep- 
tion of  this  word,  dipping  and  modal  action,  while  they 
bring  fresh  tribute  to  that  idea  of  its  nature  which  liberates 
it  from  all  trammels  of  form,  and  gives  it  control  over  all 
acts  competent  to  meet  its  imperious  demand,  in  primary 
use,  for  intusposition. 

4.  "And  were  mersed  with  their  vessels." 

After  the  capture  of  Tarichea,  the  Jews  entered  the  ves- 
sels which  had  been  prepared  for  such  an  emergency,  and 
engaged  in  a  sea-fight  on  Lake  Genesareth  with  shipping 
got  ready  to  attack  them  by  Vespasian. 


BAPTISM  WITH  INFLUENCE.  65 

The  lighter  vessels  of  the  Jews  were  crushed  by  the 
heavier  Roman  ships, and  "the  Jews  were  mersed  with  their 
vessels." 

Whatever  forms  of  action  may  be  involved  in  effecting 
the  baptisms,  a  tempest  blast,  a  swelling  billow,  the  crush- 
ing blow  of  a  war-ship,  all  alike  eschew  a  dipping,  while  all, 
with  one  consent,  effect  the  demanded  state  of  intuspositiou 
with  its  controlling  influence. 

5.  "But  of  those  mersed  that  rose  to  the  surface,  either  a 
dart  overtook  or  a  vessel  seized  upon  them." 

The  occurrence,  here  referred  to,  belongs  to  the  same 
naval  engagement.  The  special  point  claiming  attention  is 
the  fact  that  persons  mersed^  with  a  sinking  ship,  may  come 
to  the  surface  again  previous  to  being  drowned.  Mersion 
is  always  unlimited,  in  itself,  as  to  the  time  of  continuance; 
but  it  does  not  preclude  the  intervention  of  other  causes  to 
bring  it  to  a  termination.  In  the  present  case,  it  was  the 
desire  and  effort  of  the  Romans  to  make  the  mersion  perma- 
nent; but,  not  having  immediate  control  of  the  baptized, 
they,  by  their  efforts  to  escape  the  natural  and  ordinary  con- 
sequence of  baptism  in  water  of  human  beings,  succeeded 
in  rising  to  the  surface.  It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  call 
attention  to  the  immense  and  radical  difference  between 
such  a  baptism  and  a  dipping.  A  human  being  baptized  into 
water,  and  left  to  the  natural  force  of  such  baptism,  state, 
or  condition,  will  as  certainly  and  invariably  perish  as  that 
man  was  created  to  live  upon  the  earth  and  to  breathe  the 
atmosphere.  A  human  being  dipped  into  water,  and  left  to 
the  natural  force  of  such  dipping,  (dipping  introduces  into 
no  state  or  condition,)  will  as  certainly  and  invariably  ex- 
perience no  other  effect  than  a  superficial  wetting,  as  that 
dipping  carries  its  object,  momentarily,  into  and  recovers  it 
out  of  water. 

Any  attempt  to  unify  things  so  alien  in  nature  as  a  bap- 
tism and  dipping  must  end  in  the  blankest  disappointment. 

Neither  aid  nor  comfort,  then,  can  be  derived  from  this 
5 


66  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

transaction  to  sustain  the  Baptist  theory  in  the  sore  extremity 
to  which  it  is  reduced. 

Ships  baptized  (carried  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea)  by  tem- 
pest or  naval  battle,  and  human  beings  baptized  (drowned, 
or  a  right  honest  attempt  made  for  it),  will  indicate  ^ar^ri^u} 
as  a  word  competent  to  bring  its  objects  into  a  new  state  or 
condition  characterized  by  controlling  influence,  but  they 
can  have  neither  part  nor  lot  in  an  efibrt  to  fasten  upon  that 
word  the  fiction  of  a  dipping. 


INTUSPOSITION  FOE  INFLUENCE, 

1.  BapouvT£<;  as),  /.ai  (jaTLTi^ovTS^  wc  Iv  Tatuia  \irjy6;ievov. 

Jewish  Antiq.,  xv,  3. 

2.  BaTzrO'tpsvoi;  iv  -/.oXuixfirjOpa,  reXtora.  Jewish   War,  1,  22. 

3.  ' EjidnTCffsv  izwv  to  0xa.(po^.  "  "     iii,  8. 

1.  Always  pressing  down  and  mersing  him,  as  if  in  sport,  while 

swimming,  they  ceased  not  until  they  had  wholly  drowned 
him. 

2.  And  there,  being  mersed  in  the  pool  by  the  Galatians  accord- 

ing to  command,  he  died. 

3.  Voluntarily  mersed  his  ship. 

PAKTICULAPv  CASES  EXAMINED. 
BAPTISMS    FOR    INFLUENCE. 

1.  "  Always  pressing  down  and  mersing  him,  as  if  in  sport, 
while  swimming." 

Aristobulus,  high  priest  and  of  royal  blood,  greatly  be- 
loved by  the  people,  had  awakened  the  suspicion  and  jealousy 
of  Herod,  the  reigning  monarch,  but  without  claim,  by  lineal 
descent,  to  the  throne.  Herod,  having  resolved  upon  his 
destruction,  allured  him  to  engage  in  sportive  exercise,  and 
when  heated  thereby,  enticed  him  to  a  fish-pond,  within  his 


BAPTISMS    FOR   INFLUENCE.  67 

palace  grounds,  to  induce  him  to  seek  refreshment  by  bath- 
ing in  its  waters.  In  the  pond  were  already  some  of  his 
creatures  under  pretence  of  bathing,  but  really  to  carry  out 
the  murderous  intent  of  the  king.  Aristobulus  havins;  en- 
tered  the  pond,  these  assassins  consummated  their  purpose 
by  "pressing  down  and  mersing  his  head  while  be  was 
swimming,  as  if  in  sport."  Thus  Aristobulus  was  murdered 
by  being  drowned. 

The  comment  of  Dr.  Carson  on  this  transaction  is  as  follows : 
"Aristobulus  was  several  times  dipped  before  he  was  entirely 
suffocated.  If  so,  the  action  of  the  verb  was  performed  on 
him  without  destroying  him.  He  might  have  been  saved 
after  having  been  immersed.  It  was  not  the  word  haptizo 
which  destroyed  him.  It  was  the  keeping  him  too  long 
under  the  water  after  immersion,"  (p.  263.)  In  another 
case  of  drowning,  he  says:  "  The  Greek  word  bapiizo  would 
not  hurt  them  more  than  the  harmless  English  word  dip, 
were  there  an  immediate  emersion  ;  and  clip,  if  not  followed 
by  an  emersion,  will  be  followed  by  death  as  its  consequence, 
as  M^ell  as  haptizo;  and  the  latter  may  be  followed  by  emer- 
sion as  well  as  the  former.  The  continuation  underwater 
is  not  here  expressed  by  the  verb  in  question,"  (p.  286.) 

Baptists  have  good  reason  to  do  their  best  with  this  case, 
both  to  get  drowning  out  of  it  and  to  get  dipping  into  it. 
The}''  could  have  no  bolder  or  abler  representative  in  making 
such  attempt  than  Dr.  Carson.  How  has  he  succeeded? 
The  fact  of  drowning  is  so  ingrained  in  the  narrative  of  the 
baptism,  that  even  a  Carson  will  not  attempt  to  eliminate  it. 
The  best  that  he  can  do,  is  to  try  and  divorce  it  from  [iar-iZui. 
The  basis  of  this  endeavor  lies  in  the  assumed  identification 
between  a  baptism  and  a  dipping.  This  assumption  per- 
vades, like  a  fretting  leprosy,  all  his  writings,  and  utterly 
vitiates  them,  notwithstanding  much  that  is  true,  for  the  end 
for  which  they  are  designed.  In  reply  to  the  statement  that 
"Aristobulus  was  several  times  dipped,''  we  reply,  Aristobu- 
lus was  not  "  dipped "  once.  There  was  no  act  of  "  dipping" 
performed.  He  was  in  the  water,  under  the  water,  except 
his  head.     That,  his  murderers  did  not  dip,  hut  "pressed 


68  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

down."  The  act  of  pressing  down  does  not  involve  any 
raising  up;  nor  did  these  murderers  volunteer  any  such  addi- 
tion. It  would  not  have  answered  their  purpose.  If  the 
head  of  Aristobuius  ever  got,  again,  above  the  water,  into 
which  it  was  "pressed  down,"  he  must  get  it  there  himself 
as  he  best  could.  He  will  have  neither  deed  nor  wish  from 
Herod's  assassins  to  help  him.  Bat  not  only  does  "  pressing 
down "  involve  no  taking  out,  and  is  thus  alien  from  dip, 
neither  does  it  involve  any  limitation  of  continuance  within 
the  Avater,  and  is,  thus,  again  shown  to  be  foreign  in  its  nature 
from  that  word.  Two  things  are  evident  in  the  narrative. 
1.  Aristobuius  was  not  "pressed  down"  sufficiently  long, 
the  first  time,  to  suffocate  him ;  this  would  have  betrayed  the 
murderous  intent.  2.  He  was  "pressed  down"  sufficiently 
deep,  and  kept  under  water  sufficiently  long,  to  cause  partial 
exhaustion.  A  repetition  of  such  "sport"  (on  one  who  was 
each  time  less  able  to  recover  himself)  soon  produced  the 
legitimate  effect  of  a  "pressing  down"  baptism.  He  was 
drowned.  But,  Dr.  Carson  says,  "It  was  not  the  word  bap- 
tizo  which  destroyed  him.  It  was  the  keeping  him  too  long 
under  the  water  after  immersion."  Is  it  naivete  most  charm- 
ing, or  acuteness  most  marvellous,  Avhich  makes  this  sugges- 
tion? In  whose  service  and  at  whose  behest  is  "pressing 
down  "  acting?  Is  it  not  that  of  fiar.riX<i)t  When  "  pressing 
down"  puts  the  unhappy  High  Priest  under  water,  does 
^anri'^u}  object  ?  "When  it  keeps  him  "  under  water  too  long" 
for  life,  does  ^arM^ta  object  ?  If  the  maxim  quifacit  per  alium 
facit  per  se,  be  true,  this  Greek  cannot  enter  the  plea — not 
guiltg. 

"Died  from  being  buried  by  the  fall  of  a  sandbank,"  says 
the  coroner's  jury.  "  Wrong,"  says  the  critic,  " '  being  buried' 
did  not  kill  him,  it  was  the  remaining  too  long  under  the 
sand  !  "  "  Guilty  of  murder  by  cutting  the  man's  throat," 
says  the  verdict.  "No,"  answers  the  criminal,  "cutting  the 
throat  does  not  kill,  it  is  pressing  the  knife  in  too  deeply !  " 
"Drowned  by  baptism  in  a  pool,"  says  Josephus.  "is^o," 
says  Carson,  "not  by  baptism,  but  by  being  kept  too  long 
under  water!"     Just  as  though  the  "  keeping  under  water 


BAPTISMS  FOR  INFLUENCE.  G9 

too  long  "  was  not  the  very  alpha  and  omega  of  the  baptism 
designed,  and  as  though  a  baptism  Avas  not  chosen  rather 
than  a  dipping,  because  under  the  one  they  could  "keep  him 
too  long  under  the  water"  to  live,  and  by  the  other  they 
could  not 

Dr.  Carson  adds  farther,  "  Dip,  if  not  followed  by  an  emer- 
sion, will  cause  death  as  well  as  bcqjlize."  The  supposition 
is  an  impossible  one.  Emersion  belongs  to  dip  as  really  as 
immersion.  Immersion  without  emersion  is  not  a  dipping. 
On  the  other  hand,  baptism  has  nothing  to  do  with  an  emer- 
sion. Kever  since  t^aTzriXio  existed,  did  it  take  out  of  the  water 
what  it  put  into  it.  In  whatever  case  a  baptized  object  has 
been  removed  from  a  state  of  baptism,  the  removal  was  never 
effected,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  (iaTtzi'^at.  The  assassins 
baptized  Aristobulus.  Aristobulus  recovered  himself  out  of 
this  state  of  baptism  without  help  from  them.  Again  they 
baptized  him;  and  again  he  recovered  himself.  At  length, 
too  much  exhausted  to  struggle  more,  he  remained  in  that 
state  of  baptism  into  which  he  was  brought  by  Herod's  com- 
mand, and  perished.  Emersion  in  this  case  was  an  accident 
and  foreign, to  the  word;  drowning  was  the  natural  and 
necessary  consequence,  except  through  foreign  intervention 
to  prevent  its  occurrence.  Just  as  soon  as  this  foreign  inter- 
vention (the  struggles  of  Aristobulus)  ceased,  the  baptism 
bore  its  legitimate  fruit,  and  Herod  was  a  murderer. 

Unless  Baptists  can  find  some  happier  case  than  this  by 
which  to  convert  a  baptism  into  a  dipping,  their  labor  will 
receive  but  poor  reward. 

2.  "And  there,  being  merscd  in  the  pool  by  the  Galatians 
according  to  command,  he  died." 

This  is  a  second  allusion  to  this  same  murder.  It  differs 
from  the  former  in  omitting  to  give  any  form  of  act  by  which 
the  baptism  was  effected.  In  the  absence  of  such  informa- 
tion, imagination  might  exhaust  itself  in  vain  attempts  to 
learn  the  facts  of  the  case.  So  far  is  it  from  being  true,  that 
the  Greek  word  is,  in  such  matter,  its  own  expositor;  tliere 
is  absolutely  no  help  to  be  derived  from  it  to  learn  the  defi- 


70  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

iiite  act  by  wliicli  any  baptism  is  secured.  Such  knowledge 
must  come  from  other  quarters.  Had  the  "Antiquities"  of 
Josephus  perished,  this  statement  in  his  "War"  would  hate 
left  us  hopelessly  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  act  employed  by  the 
assassins  in  the  baptism  of  Aristobulus. 

This  passage,  also,  leads  to  the  remark,  that  Josephus  had 
other  ideas  than  Carson  entertained  as  to  the  legitimate  force 
of  a  baptism.  The  historian  says,  "being  mersed  he  died." 
The  defender  of  the  Baptist  theory  says,  "  baptize  does  not 
hurt  anybody,  it  is  being  kept  too  long  under  water!"  It 
would  seem  that  Josephus  thought  that  this  baptism  em- 
braced the  "  too  long  under  water,"  Neither  Jew  nor  Greek 
ever  wrote  "being  dipjyrd,  he  died."  This  baptism  was  for 
the  sake  of  its  deadly  influence. 

3.  "As,  also,  I  esteem  a  pilot  most  cowardly,  who,  fearing 
a  storm,  should  voluntarily  nierse  his  ship  before  the  tempest 
came." 

This  is  part  of  an  argument  by  Josephus  against  suicide 
in  times  of  impending  peril.  He  says,  that  self-murder,  to 
avoid  peril,  is  not  manlike,  but  cowardlj^,  as  the  action  of  a 
pilot  who  should  sink  his  ship  for  fear  of  a  storm.  As  to 
the  particular  form  of  act  by  which  the  vessel  was  to  be 
brought  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  the  Orator  gives  us  no  in- 
formation, anymore  than  he  informs  us  by  what  form  of  act 
the  suicide  was  to  kill  himself.  To  kill,  expresses  a  very 
definite  result  to  be  accomplished,  but  does  not  throw  one . 
ray  of  light  on  a  thousand  definite  acts  equally  competent  to 
reach  that  result.  To  merse,  expresses  a  very  definite  result 
to  be  eflected ;  but  it  is  dumb  with  silence  as  to  the  form  of 
act  by  which  it  may  be  accomplished.  We  must,  then,  re- 
main forever  in  ignorance  whether  this  pilot  was  to  baptize 
his  sliip  by  running  her  against  a  rock,  by  carrying  too  much 
sail,  by  turning  her  broadside  to  the  rising  wave,  by  unship- 
ping her  rudder,  by  scuttling  her,  or  in  whatever  other  con- 
ceivable method  the  end  could  be  accomplished.  Certain  is 
it,  we  appeal  in  vain  to  i'ianTi'^io  to  instruct  us  on  this  point. 
Or,  if  Baptists  can  extract  a  definite  act  from  this  word,  and 


FIGURE   GROUNDED    IN    DESTRUCTIVE    MERSION.  71 

illuminate  the  quo  modo  of  this  pilot  baptism,  it  must  be 
through  some  secret  iu  philological  chemistry  to  which  we 
have  not  yet  attained. 

This  comparison  by  Josephus  of  a  suicide  to  this  mersing 
pilot  may  help  us  to  understand  some  other  cases  of  mersion. 
The  points  of  comparison  pair  off  thus:  self-murderer  and 
pilot;  life  and  ship;  suffering  and  tempest;  death  and  mer- 
sion. Does  any  one  doubt,  that  the  point  of  accord  in  the 
first  pair  is  that  of  control,  wielded  by  the  suicide  over  life 
and  by  the  pilot  over  his  ship;  in  the  second  pair,  the  stakes 
at  issue;  iu  the  third  pair,  the  sources  of  dread;  and  in  the 
fourth  pair,  what  ?  a  likeness  between  death  and  a  dipping? 
between  death  and  enveloping  water  ?  or,  between  the  destruc- 
tion o1^  "life"  however  effected,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
"  ship  "  however  effected  ? 

Will  any  one  in  his  sober  senses  think  of  bringing  into 
viev7  the  means  to  these  ends,  a  sword  in  the  one  case,  a 
watery  envelopment  in  the  other  ?  Is  not  the  comparison 
wholly  exclusive  of  such  things,  and  exhausted  by  the  naked 
idea 'oi' destruction,  caused  iu  the  one  case  by  a  sword,  and  in 
the  other  by  encompassing  waters,  and  agreeing  in  nothing 
but  their  power  of  destruction?  If  this  be  so,  then,  we  may 
find  in  other  cases,  that-" mersion"  stands  neither  for  envel- 
opment, nor  definite  act,  but  as  the  representative  of  destruc- 
tion.   Certainly  this  ship-mersion  was  a  baptism  for  influence. 


FIGUEE  GEOUNDED  IN  DESTEUCTIVE  MEESION. 

Jewish  War,  ii,  20. 
2.    TouO  iuG-zp  TzXzuraia  OueD.a  yretna^D/xivuuq  ruhq  veavcffxouq  i-i,3d-Tia£. 

Jeioish  War,  i,  27. 

1.  As  from  a  ship  being  mersed,  swam  away  from  the  city. 

2.  This,  as  a  last  storm,  overmersed  the  tempest-beaten  young 

men. 


72  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

PAETICULAR  CASES  EXAMINED. 
FIGURE  AVITH   MERSION. 

1.  "  Many  of  the  distinguished  Jews,  as  from  a  ship  being 
mersed,  swam  away  from  the  city." 

The  Romans  having  raised  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  and  re- 
treated, some  of  its  principal  citizens  availed  themselves  of 
the  opportunity  to  make  their  escape.  The  condition  of  the 
city,  at  this  time,  is  represented  by  the  historian  as  most 
hopeless,  and  likened  to  a  ship  on  the  point  of  being  swal- 
lowed up  in  the  sea.  The  comparison  thus  instituted  between 
the  condition  of  the- city  being  ruined,  and  the  condition  of 
a  ship  being  swallowed  up,  leads  to  the  use  of  a  word  ("to 
swim  away")  expressive  of  method  of  escape,  well  adapted 
to  one  member  of  the  comparison,  a  ship,  but  not  appro- 
priate, in  its  form  of  movement,  to  the  other,  a  city. 

"To  swim"  is  not  limited  to  application  to  movement 
through  water, — "  She  swam  across  the  room."  But  such 
smooth,  gliding  movement  is  not  adapted  to  express  the  move- 
ment with  which  men  fly  from  impending  ruin.  Are  we,  then, 
to  understand  the  writer,  by  the  use  of  this  term  and  by  the 
comparison  with  a  ship,  to  intend  that  his  readers  should 
conceive  of  Jerusalem  as  encompassed  by  a  waste  of  waters, 
into  which  its  citizens  are  leaping  and  "swimming  away?" 
Is  such  a  picture,  drawn  by  a  brush  dipped  into  "swimming 
away,"  anything  else  than  most  ridiculous  ?  Let  us  make 
another  application  of  this  method  of  interpretation.  In  this 
same  paragraph,  this  escape  from  the  city  is  represented 
as  a  "flying  away."  Shall  Ave  now,  on  the  strength  of  this 
term,  make  another  draft  on  our  imaginations,  and  taking 
these  eminent  citizens  from  the  watery  element,  substitute 
wings  for  Jins,  while  we  gaze  in  rapt  admiration  as  they  launch 
away  from  the  crumbling  battlements,  and  "fly"  to  some  far- 
ofi:*  region  of  repose?  "  Ran  away"  is  used  to  describe  this 
same  flight.  Does  this  word  shut  us  up  to  the  spectacle  of 
a  race  against  time,  runnwg  on  foot  or  on  horseback?  Or, 
is  the  wealth  of  imagination  to  be  displayed  by  the  concep- 


FIGURE  WITH   MERSION.  73 

tion  of  a  picture  in  which  all  these  features  are  artistically 
grouped;  having  war-shattered  Jerusalem  for  its  centre,  en- 
compassing waters  for  its  field,  citizens  "running"  through 
its  shallows,  citizens  "swimming"  through  its  depths,  citi- 
zens "flying"  through  the  air — is  this  the  picture? 

Does  this  seem  to  be  only  an  amusing  extravagance  ? 

It  is  a  simple  representation  of  Baptist  "figure,"  which 
demands  that  a  word,  not  used  in  its  primary  sense,  should 
carry  with  it,  in  such  use,  all  that  pertains  to  its  primary  ap- 
plication. Thus, Dr.  Carson  insists  that  "  figure"  shall  take 
up  the  "  baptized  coast,"  and  dip  it  into  the  sea;  for  though 
it  is  not  dipped,  yet  it  must  be  dipped  by  imagination,  be- 
cause "  the  word  means  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip."  And  the 
"baptized"  drunkard  must,  by  "figure,"  be  put  into  wine; 
for  although  putting  into  wine  won't  make  anybody  drunk, 
yet  "  the  word  means  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,"  and  in  he 
must  go.  And  the  "baptized"  debtor  must,  by  "figure," 
go  into  the  water,  sinking  with  a  load  on  his  shoulders,  be- 
cause "  the  word  means  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip."  Such 
doctrine,  requiring  a  word  to  carry  everywhere  all  the  fea- 
tures entering  into  original  use,  whether  applicable  or  inap- 
plicable, reminds  one  of  the  old  lady  who  could  not  visit  her 
next  neighbor  without  carrying  along  her  "  big  box  and 
little  box,  bandbox  and  bundle."  The  doctrine  of  Sir  Wil- 
liam Hamilton  is  better  conformed  to  fact  and  the  exigencies 
of  the  case, — "All  languages,  by  the  same  word,  express  a 
multitude  of  thoughts,  more  or  less  difteringfrom  each  other. 
We  are  obliged,  from  the  context,  from  the  tenor,  and  from 
the  general  analogy  of  the  discourse,  to  determine  the  mean- 
ing." Now,  when  the  terms  "swim  away,"  ''fly  away," 
"run  away,"  each  denoting,  originally,  a  definite  form  of 
movement,  (one  through  water,  one  through  air,  and  one  over 
the  face  of  the  earth,)  are  applied  to  the  flight  of  citizens 
from  an  imperilled  city,  shall  we  insist  on  the  definite  move- 
ment of  each,  or  merge  them  in  the  idea,  io  esccqoe,  which  is 
common  to  them  all?  To  "  swim  away"  from  a  ship  indi- 
cates the  use  of  the  last  means  for  safety;  to  "  swim  away" 
from  a  city  suggests,  not  the  modal  use  of  arms  and  legs, 


74  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

but  a  resort  to  extreme  means  for  getting  away.  So  "  to  fly 
away,"  "  to  run  away,"  do  not  shut  up  to  mode  of  depar- 
ture, but  w^e  may  take  out  of  both  of  them  the  single  element 
of  "  rapidity  of  movement,"  rejecting  everything  else,  and 
apply  it  as  the  case  may  require. 

In  the  passage  before  us,  the  mersion  has  nothing  to  do, 
directly,  with  the  city.  The  figure  centres  in  the  destruction 
common  to  ship  and  city,  with  the  anxiety  of  sailors  in  the 
one  ease,  and  of  citizens  in  the  other,  to  escape  being  in- 
volved in  that  destruction ;  it  does-  not  reach  either  to  the 
nature  or  the  means  of  the  destruction.  The  figure  does 
not  involve  the  city  in  any  water  envelopment.  The  ship 
perishes ;  the  city  perishes.  Ruin,  and  escape  from  ruin, 
begin  and  end  "  the  figure." 

The  figure  involves  a  destructive  mersion,  and,  therefore, 
has  nothing  in  common  with  a  dipping. 

2.  "This,  as  a  last  storm,  overmersed  the  tempest-beaten 
young  men." 

These  young  men  were  the  sons  of  Herod,  whom  he  had 
long  threatened  with  death,  under  the  idea  that  they  were 
plotting  against  him.  They  had,  however,  escaped,  until 
accusation  w^as  made  by  Salome,  Herod's  wife  and  their 
mother-in-law,  under  which,  "as  a  last  storm,"  they  lost 
their  lives. 

The  passage  presents,  what  is  rare,  a  distinct  and  well- 
sustained  picture  figure,  w^ith  mersion  as  a  leading  element. 
Aristobulus  and  Alexander,  sons  of  Herod  by  Mariamne, 
became,  after  their  mother's  death,  objects  of  suspicion,  ac- 
cusations, and  plottings,  with  a  view  to  compass  their  de- 
struction. Josephus  indicates  this  condition  of  things,  when 
he  speaks  of  them  as  tempest-tossed  and  weather-beaten. 
They  sufliered  from  these  influences,  but  lived.  Salome  ef- 
fected theii'  destruction.  These  facts  suggest  a  resemblance 
to  a  ship  which  has  weathered  many  storms,  but,  at  last, 
goes  down  under  one  of  resistless  power. 

The  points  of  comparison  are  plain :  1.  The  young  men 
and  ship  with  her  crew.     2.  Various  evil  machinations  and 


FIGURE   WITH    MERSION.  75 

frequent  storms,  3.  Salome's  accusation  and  the  final  storm. 
4.  Death  ayd  baptism. 

"What  demands  attention  here,  as  bearing  upon  our  in- 
quiry, is:  1.  The  absence  of  all  show  of  comparison  between 
any  act  on  the  one  hand  and  on  the  other.  2.  The  same 
lack  of  comparison  between  any  condition  on  the  one  side 
and  condition  of  envelopment  on  the  other. 

It  it  be  asked.  Is  there  not  "envelopment"  in  hcqHism? 
I  answer,  Yes,  in  every  primary  baptism;  but  that  does 
not  carry  "envelopment"  into  a  comparison.  Envelopment 
may  be  the  end  of  a  baptism,  as  when  I  put  a  stone  within 
water,  or  it  may  be  only  a  means  to  an  end,  as  when  Aris- 
tobulus  is  put  within  water  by  assassins.  When,  therefore, 
I  use  baptism  as  a  comparison,  I  may  use  simply  the  idea 
of  envelopment,  or  I  may  reject  entirely  the  envelopment, 
and  limit  the  comparison  to  the  result  of  envelopment.  This 
has  been  done  in  the  present  case.  There  is  no  comparison 
between  the  direct  means  causing  the  death  of  these  young 
men,  whatever  it  was,  and  the  direct  means  causing  the  de- 
struction of  the  ship,  which  was  envelopment  by  water;  but 
the  comparison  is  between  the  indirect  means,  namely,  Sa- 
lome's accusation  and  the  final  storm.  Thus,  envelopment 
is  left  out  of  view,  and  its  result — remediless  destruction — 
is  brought  into  the  foreground. 

As  used  in  this  passage,  fiar.ri'tm  speaks,  directly,  of  de- 
struction. "  This  accusation  caused  these  sutiTering  young 
men  to  perish^  as  a  final  storm  causes  a  weather-beaten  ship 
to  perish."  The  quo  modo  of  perishing,  in  the  one  case  or 
the  other,  however  well  they  may  be  understood,  are  not  in 
the  comparison.  Figurative  use  of  words  often  lights  up, 
resplendently,  their  literal  use.  We  are  here,  distinctl}^ 
taught  that  iSanu^u}  may  be  used  to  express,  directly,  the  result 
of  mersion. 

This  is  a  truth  of  the  first  importance,  and  utterly  repu- 
diated by  the  Baptist  theory.  To  escape  it,  they  prefer  to 
adopt  all  sorts  of  grotesque  imaginings  shrouded  in  nonde- 
script "  figure." 


76  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 


LITERAL,  SECONDARY  USE. 

CONDITION  WITHOUT   INTUSPOSITION — INFLUENCE   PERVADING   AND 
CONTROLLING,    UNLIMITED    IN    FORM,    FORCE,   OR   TIME. 

BAPTISM    WITHOUT    MERSION. 

1.  ' Eni^aTtrifftiv  yap  aoruv  rr^v  noXcv.  Jewish  War,  iii,  7. 

2.  Ot  Si)  xai  di^a  T/)?  ardaewq  usrepov  i{id7:Tiaav  rijv  tzo/.cv. 

Jew  is 

3.  "Ats  fta7:rt!^6;j.evou  to??  iTziuuai  rvu  Xoyiaixoo.  Philo,  Eu 

1.  For  he,  himself,  would  overmerse  the  city. 

2.  Who,  independently  of  the  sedition,  afterwards  mersed  the 

city. 

3.  As  though  the  reason  were  mersed  by  the  things  coming 

upon  it. 

Baptism  of  the  City  of  Jotapata. 

1.  "  It  did  not  become  him,  either  to  fly  from  enemies, 
or  to  abandon  friends ;  nor  to  leap  ofl',  as  from  a  ship  over- 
taken by  a  storm,  into  which  he  had  entered  in  fair  weather; 
that  he  would,  himself,  overmerse  the  city,  as  no  one  would 
longer  dare  to  make  resistance  to  the  enemy  w^ien  he  was 
gone  through  whom  their  courage  was  sustained." 

Josephus,  besieged  in  Jotapata,  purposed,  after  the  de- 
fence became  hopeless,  to  escape,  thinking  that  he  might, 
on  some  other  field,  be  of  more  service  to  his  country.  The 
citizens  objected  in  the  language  above  quoted. 

A  first  glance  at  the  passage  might  convey  the  impression 
that  ftanriZu)  was  uscd  in  picture  figure.  A  closer  examina- 
tion would,  however,  correct  such  impression.  There  is,  in- 
deed, figure  in  the  passage,  but  it  is  limited  to  a  compari- 
son between  the  city  unassailed  by  enemies  (when  Josephus 
came  to  it)  and  a  ship  in  a  calm,  and  between  tlie  city  as- 
sailed by  enemies  (when  Josephus  talks  of  leaving)  and  a 
ship  in  a  storm.     This  is  all  the  figure. 

The  subsequent  use  of  iSamO^u}^  most  probably,  was  sug- 
gested by  this  figure;  but  it  is  not  itself  figurative;  certainly 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   CITY   OF   JOTAPATA.  77 

not  in  any  Baptist  sense.  It  is  intolerable  to  suppose  that  a 
city  is  figured,  through  the  departure  of  an  individual,  as 
dipped  into  water,  immersed  in  the  sea,  overwhelmed  by  a 
flood,  or  sunk  in  the  ocean.  Such  extravagances,  in  full 
statement.  Baptist  writers  are  careful  to  keep  out  of  view. 
They  content  themselves  with  a  vague  reference  to  the  vague 
term  "figure,"  and  then  vaguely  translate  by  some  word 
made  vague  in  its  import  by  a  double  use.  Dr.  Conant  calls 
it  "  figure,"  and  translates  overwhelm.  But  this  word  has  a 
double  use,  in  one  of  which  neither  water-floods,  nor  cover- 
ing can  be  found. 

"  Long  beards,  long  noses,  and  pale  faces, 
They  ove7-whclm  me  with  the  spleen." 

Do  "  beards,"  "  noses,"  "  faces,"  let  loose  water-floods,  or 
envelop  with  anything  ? 

"  Guilty  and  guiltless  find  an  equal  fate, 
And  one  vast  ruin  whelm  the  Olympian  state." 

Can  any  human  device  convert  "one  vast  ruin"  into  a 
flood  of  water?  Or,  can  this  "  Olympian  state"  be  put,  by 
this  language,  into  a  state  of  envelopment  ? 

Dr.  Conant,  theoretically,  uses  "  overwhelm"  in  one  sense; 
all  his  readers  will  understand  it  in  another  sense. 

Dr.  Carson  translates  ^'- sink  the  city,"  in  flat  contradiction 
of  his  reiterated  and  absolutely  exclusive  definition, — "dip, 
and  nothing  but  dip."  But  I  must  be  careful  how  I  call 
^^  dip — smA-,"  a  contradiction,  lest  I  should  be  sprinkled  with 
"Attic  salt." 

This  is  only  "figure;"  one  mode  of  action  put  for  another! 
A  very,  convenient  figure  certainly.  And,  also,  one  meaning 
put  for  another.  For  Dr.  Carson  does  not  mean  that  "  sink" 
shall  either  put  the  city  into  the  sea  or  into  the  earth,  but, 
contrary  to  theory,  is  compelled  to  use  it  in  its  secondary 
sense — to  ruin.  Hear  his  own  language:  "He  would  sink 
or  epibaptize  the  city.  His  desertion  of  the  city  would  be 
the  means  of  its  ruin.  He  is  then  represented  as  doing  the 
thing  that  would  be  the  consequence  of  his  departure,"  (p. 


78  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

98.)  And  this  "  ruin"  is  directly,  and  not  figuratively,  ex- 
pressed by  [iaTni^ui^  deriving  its  power  so  to  do  from  that  de- 
structive influence  which  is  the  so-common  result  of  envel- 
opment baptism. 

The  nut  is  cracked,  the  enveloping  shell  is  worse  than 
useless,  and  thrown  aside;  while  the  kernel  truth,  adapted 
to  the  case,  is  applied. 

What  these  foilures  of  Baptist  writers  indicate  to  be  true 
is  proved  to  be  so,  indeed,  by  the  language  of  the  passage ; 
"He  would  overmerse — ruin — the  city,  because  no  one  would 
longer  resist  the  enemyj^  Then  the  epibaptism  was  to  come 
from  the  "  enemy,"  not  from  an  oyerw helming  Jlood,  nor  from 
the  ship-city  sinking  in  the  sea.  Figure  would  have  required 
their  eftbrts  to  be  made  against  the  storm,  not  against  the 
Homcms. 

The  case  is  one  of  secondary  use, — influence  without  en- 
velopment. And  no  abandonment  of  di2)  for  "flood"  or 
"  sink  "  can  save  the  Baptist  theory  from  an  epibaptism,  as 
ruinous  as  that  which  abandonment  by  Josephus  would  have 
brought  on  Jotapata. 

Baptisjn  of  the  City  of  Jerusalem. 

2.  "  Who,  independently  of  the  sedition,  afterward  mersed 
the  city." 

During  the  war  between  the  Jews  and  the  Romans,  cer- 
tain robber  chiefs  with  their  bands  sought  refuge  in  Jerusa- 
lem, where  they  became  the  source  of  turmoil  and  sedition. 
But  these  were  not  the  only  evils  resulting  from  their  pres- 
ence. The  provisions  of  the  city  were  limited  for  a  pro- 
tracted siege,  and  these  plundering  and  murderous  bands, 
consuming  the  food  which  might,  otherwise,  have  sufficed 
for  the  defenders  of  the  city,  brought  on  famine,  and  thus, 
without  sedition,  would  have  baptized — mersed — ruined — 
the  city. 

Dr.  Conant  calls  this  "figure,"  and  says:  "This  natural 
and  expressive  image  of  trouble  and  distress  occurs  often  in 
the  Old  Testament.  For  example,  Ps.  69 :  2,  'I  am  come 
into  deep  waters,  where  the  floods  overflow  me.'     Verses 


BAPTISM    OF   THE    CITY    OF   JERUSALEM.  79 

14,  15  :  'Let  me  be  delivered  .  .  .  out  of  the  deep  waters; 
let  not  the  water-flood  overflow  me.'  Ps.  18  :  16,  17:  'He 
drew  me  out  of  many  waters;  he  delivered  me  from  my 
strong  enemy.'  Job's  afilictions  are  expressed  under  the 
same  image  (eh.  22: 11):  'The  flood  of  waters  covers  me.' 
Compare  Ps.  124:4,  5;  144:7;  32:6;  Ezek.  26:19." 

A  grand  source  of  confusion  and  profitless  result  in  the 
Baptist  controversy  has  been  looseness  in  the  statement  of 
principles,  or  looseness  in  the  examination  of  the  evidence 
adduced  to  support  those  principles;  sometimes  looseness 
in  both  these  particulars. 

The  Baptist  conception  of  the  value  of /Ja-r^Tw  is  a  variable 
quantity  of  the  first  degree.  There  is  no  harmony  in  the  defi- 
nition of  the  word,  and  there  is  still  less  harmony  between 
the  definition  and  the  evidence  adduced  to  sustain  it. 

Consider  for  a  moment  the  definition  of  ^arrri'^u) — "  to  dip, 
and  nothing  but  dip" — and  then  look  at  these  quotations 
adduced  for  its  support.  Is  it  not  a  reproach  on  a  man's 
sanity  to  ask  him  to  accept  the  one  in  proof  of  the  other? 
If  applying  their  own  defining  term,  phm(/e,  (as  given  on 
other  occasions,)  to  all  cases  of  usage,  makes  their  sentiments 
"  ridiculous,"  much  more  is  the  definition  dij)  made  ridicu- 
lous in  the  midst  of  witnesses  like  these. 

An  ass  in  a  lion's  skin  is  a  trifle  in  folly  compared  with 
"  dip"  making  a  figure  in  the  attire  of  "  rushing  torrents" 
and  "inundating  floods."  The  zenith  and  the  nadir  will 
come  together  sooner  than  such  definition  and  such  evidence 
will  be  made  to  harmonize. 

Again,  there  is  a  looseness  in  applying  these  "  torrents 
and  floods"  to  baptism  which  needs  to  be  corrected.  A 
torrent  may  eflect  a  baptism,  and  a  flood  may  efi'eet  a  bap- 
tism; but  a  torrent  may  sweep  against  one,  and  cause  great 
distress  and  peril,  without  causing  a  baptism;  and  one  may 
be  in  the  midst  of  a  flood,  and  be  filled  with  anguish,  in  view 
of  a  baptism  within  its  waters,  and  yet  escape  unbaptized. 
Timon's  proposed  victim  had  been  swept  away  b}'  a  flood 
of  waters ;  he  was  in  distress  and  helpless  as  he  was  swept 
by  the  torrent  toward  the  bank  where  stood  this  hater  of  his 


80  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

race;  but  lie  was  not  baptized  until  this  man-hater  stopped 
his  ears  to  the  cry :  "I  am  come  into  deep  waters;"  "De- 
liver me;  let  not  the  water-flood  overflow  me;"  "  Draw  me 
out  of  many  waters;"  and,  with  heart  which  knew  no  sym- 
pathy with  his  kind,  baptized  him,  pressing  his  head,  never 
to  rise  again,  beneath  the  waters.  Now,  this  victim  of  Ti- 
mon's  went  through  all  the  experiences  suggested  by  these 
quotations  of  Dr.  Conant  before  his  baptism;  this  imagery 
of  water-floods  is  no  image  of  baptism,  but  of  peril,  distress, 
and  anguish.  Water-floods  may  issue  in  a  baptism;  they 
do  not  do  so  necessarily;  rushing  waters  and  swelling  floods, 
therefore,  are  not  imagery  for  baptism,  but  for  troubles  and 
distresses  which  are  always  their  accompaniments.  Jonah's 
ship,  assailed  by  the  tempest  and  the  dashing  billows,  was 
in  distress,  in  peril,  and  "  ready  to  be  baptized;"  so  that  the 
cry  rang  out  above  the  howling  of  the  storm  ;  "  Let  us  be 
delivered  out  of  the  deep  waters;  let  not  the  water-flood 
overflow  us!"  That  picture — raging  sea,  bending  masts, 
tossing  ship,  praying  crew — is  the  image  of  distress ;  it  is 
not  the  image  of  a  baptism. 

Baptism  is  not  an  act  done,  nov  something  in  iran^ttu,  but 
a  result  reached;  a  state  or  condition  accomplished.  Herod's 
sons  were  many  times  in  peril  and  distress  from  plottings 
and  machinations  (torrents  and  floods);  but  were  never  bap- 
tized until  Salome's  accusation  put  them  into  their  graves; 
their  baptisms  calmed  the  troubled  waters,  as  Jonah's  bap- 
tism stilled  the  tempest,  and  brought  deliverance  to  the  im- 
perilled ship  and  crew. 

These  quotations  from  the  Psalms,  therefore,  confound 
things  that  differ.  "  Trouble  and  distress "  are  no  more 
baptism,  than  a  tempest-tossed  ship  is  a  ship  lying  in  the 
depths  of  the  sea. 

If  you  would  have  imagery  of  baptism  (in  this  direction), 
you  must  not  present  imagery  of  suffering  and  peril,  but  of 
ruin  and  death.  And  this  conclusion  brings,  again,  into  l)old 
relief  the  entire  incompetency  of  the  Baptist  theory  to  ac- 
count for  the  usage  of  this  word. 

Let  us,  now,  look  at  the  passage  itself.     In  doing  this  we 


BAPTISM    OF   THE    CITY   OF   JERUSALEM.  81 

are  struck  with  the  simplicity  and  straightforwardness  of 
the  statement.  Nothing  could  be  more  naked  of  all  figura- 
tive picturing,  unless  it  be  found  in  the  naked  word  /Ja-r-t'tw. 
Baptist  writers  have  long  enough  assumed  the  power  of  "  the 
word  to  find  them  water  in  a  desert."  They  must  give  some 
evidence  of  its  power  to  flood  Jerusalem.  They  will  not 
find  such  evidence  in  the  passage.  These  robbers  baptized 
the  cit}',  not  by  letting  loose  an  imaginary  flood  upon  it,  but 
by  eating  up  its  j^rorisions  ! 

This  is  Josephus's  notion  of  a  baptism,  and  under  its  in- 
fluence the  imaginative  Baptist  soaring  on  waxen  wings  is 
brought  back,  very  summarily,  to  the  regions  of  common 
sense.  The  provisions  devoured,  then  comes  famine,  then 
comes  feebleness  of  defenders,  then  comes  conquest,  then 
follows  tlie  flaming  temple,  and  stone  torn  from  stone,  blank 
ruin — profoundest  baptism. 

Most  evidently  does  Josephus  take  the  element  of  destruc- 
tion, inhering  in  so  many  baptisms,  and  crowding  that  idea 
into  every  letter  of  this  word,  to  the  rejection  of  all  beside,, 
most  directly  afiirms,  that  "  the  robbers,  by  indueing  a  famine, 
baptized  the  city" — brought  it  into  a  state  of  utter  ruin  ! 

I  affirm  baptism  in  water-floods  more  strongly  than  any 
Baptist  writer  ever  did,  or  ever  can,  with  any  show  of  con- 
sistency with  his  theory;  but  I  affirm  that  there  is  no  more 
water  in  /Ja-rtt^,  in  this  passage,  than  there  in  fire.  There  is 
not  the  remotest  hint,  in  word  or  thought,  that  water  was 
present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer.  As  for  the  word  itself, 
there  is  as  much^?'e  in  it  as  there  is  water;  and  Dr.  Conant 
might  as  well  have  quoted  the  fiery  baptism  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  as  the  water-floods  of  the  Psalms,  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  Greek  word.  Indeed,  as  there  was  more 
tire,  under  the  Roman  torch,  in  the  final  baptism  of  Jerusa- 
lem, than  there  was  water,  baptism  by  fire  would  seem  to 
have  the  right  of  precedence  over  water  baptism.  This  is 
certain,  beyond  all  controversy,  that  the  simple  word  ^a-ri%<o 
gives  no  authority  to  introduce  water  into  any  baptism ; 
therefore,  its  introduction  in  any  case,  in  fact  or  by  imagina- 


82  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

tiou,  must  bring  justifyiug  evidence  from  other  source  than 
this  word. 

In  the  present  case  there  is  not  one  particle  of  such  evi- 
dence. On  the  other  hand,  we  have  the  most  perfect  evidence, 
from  text  and  context,  that  utter  destruction  is  the  thought 
in  view;  while  we  have  no  less  complete  evidence  that  [ia-Ti'^ui 
is  identified  with  results  of  destruction  most  absolute,  and  is 
therefore  qualitied,  on  the  present  occasion,  to  express  such 
destruction.  And  this  duty,  we  say,  it  does,  in  fact,  here 
perform. 

Dr.  Carson  both  approves  and  condemns  this  conclusion. 
He  says,  "  The  immediate  ruin  of  the  affairs  of  the  city  is  the 
only  thing  that  is  asserted.  It  asserts  that  the  robbers  ruined 
or  sunk  the  city."  Carson  cannot  escape  acknowledging, 
that  "  ruin  "  is  the  thing  declared.  But  how  can  the  "  ruin" 
of  a  great  city  be  got  out  of  dip  ?  Why,  not  at  all,  as  every- 
body knows,  and  none  better  than  Dr.  C;  "dip,  and  nothing 
but  dip,"  must,  therefore,  be  metamorphosed  into  "sink,"  a 
word  radically  differing  both  in  form  and  power.  Conant 
translates  by  "  whelm,"  a  word  differing  essentially  from 
both  the  others.  This  difference  of  translation  of  a  word 
which  is  "  the  most  facile  in  translation  of  all  words,  never 
having  but  one  meaning,"  arises  from  a  fundamental  differ- 
ence in  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  Enough  has  been 
said  of  Dr.  Conant's  view.  Carson  (p.  84)  takes  us  out  to  sea, 
and  shows  us  "  a  ship  sinking  from  being  overburdened  and 
ill-managed  in  a  storm  from  the  dissensions  of  the  crew,"  and 
says,  see  there  "  a  striking  and  beautiful  figure" — of  a  city 
baptized  by  famine  ! ! ! 

If  the  pinions  of  Dr.  Carson's  imagination  had  not  been 
sufficiently  strong  to  bear  Jerusalem  into  mid  ocean  to  sink 
it,  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  would  have  taken  it  to  pieces, 
stone  by  stone,  and  dipped  it  in  the  pool  of  Bethesda. 

This  Baptist  writer  tells  us  the  word,  if  applied  to  houses, 
would  show  that  it  did  not  mean  immerse^  because  houses 
cannot  be  immersed,  (p.  368.)  But  how  so,  when  he  thinks 
nothing  of  taking  all  the  houses  of  Jerusalem  and  giving 
them  a  sinking-dip  in  a  trice?    I  think  we  must  let  Josephus 


BAPTISM   BY   GLUTTONY.  83 

have  his  own  way,  and,  rejecting  flood  and  stovra,  accept  the 
robber  baptism  by  famine,  bringing  the  long-prophesied  ruin 
to  the  city. 

Baptism,  of  the  Intellect  by  Ghittomj, 

3.  "  One  might  evidence  it  also  by  this, — the  sober  and 
content  are  more  intelligent,  but  those  always  filled  with 
drink  and  food  are  least  intelligent,  as  though  the  reason 
were  mersed  by  the  things  coming  upon  it." 

Philo  was  a  Jew,  living  in  the  first  century.  He  contrasts 
in  this  passage  the  intellectual  manifestation  of  those  who 
lead  a  frugal,  with  such  as  lead  a  gluttonous  life, — vigor 
characterizing  the  former  and  imbecility  the  latter.  It  is  a 
fact  of  universal  experience,  that  excessive  eating  and  drink- 
ing exerts  an  unfovorable  influence  over  intellectual  devel- 
opment. 

Dr.  Carson  passes  over  this  case.  Had  he  noticed  it,  we 
should,  no  doubt,  have  been  treated  to  the  "  beautiful  and 
striking  figure"  of  an  overloaded  ship  sinking  in  storm  or 
calm ;  or  the  glutton,  in  deep  water,  sinking  under  a  burden 
on  his  shoulders  (it  may  be  a  wine-skin  and  a  round  of  beef); 
thus  magnifying  the  powers  of  imagination,  if  not  throwing 
lio-ht  on  the  usao;e  of  the  word. 

Dr.  Conant  translates  by  "  whelm."  Whether  "  the  natu- 
ral and  expressive  image"  of  water-floods  is  to  be  introduced 
here,  as  in  the  previous  case  of  "  whelming,"  he  does  not 
state.  What  light  can  be  thrown  upon  the  meaning  of 
(Sazn^a/  by  dipping,  or  sinking,  or  whelming  this  glutton,  in 
fact  or  in  figure,  I  have  not  enough  of  imagination  to  con- 
ceive. If  no  such  picturing  is  to  be  done,  then  we  must  look 
for  the  baptism  either  in  a  literal  envelopment,  or  give  the 
word  direct  power  to  express  hurtful  influence  without  en- 
velopment. 

Some  might  plead  in  favor  of  the  first  interpretation,  that 
the  meat  and  drink  are  represented  as  "coming  upon"  the 
reason.  In  that  case,  the  reason  would  have  to  lie  at  the 
bottom  of  the  stomach,  while  eatables  and  potables  came 
down  upon  it.     ISTo  doubt  a  baptism  could  be  so  efiected; 


84  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

for  Dr.  Fuller  says,  a  man  who  lies  on  the  sea-shore  will  be 
baptized  by  the  waves  "coming  upon"  him.  As  to  this 
baptism,  I  have  only  to  confess  that  the  brains  of  some  people 
seem  to  be  very  closely  connected  with  the  epigastric  region. 
My  preference,  however,  is  for  the  otlier  baptism. 

I  accept  the  statement  as  simple  and  direct  in  both  cases : 
"  The  reason  is  affected  beneficially  by  temperance,  while  it 
is  baptized — influenced  injuriously — by  gluttony."  Does  any 
one  doubt  the  truth  of  the  sentiment?  Does  any  one  doubt 
that  l^anri^to  may,  legitimate!}',  acquire  such  power  of  utter- 
ance from  connection  with  baptisms  where  hurtful  influence 
has  a  necessary,  yet  secondary  place  (because  only  a  conse- 
quence), but  now  brought  forward,  in  new  circumstances, 
into  a  primary  position  ? 

Such  interpretation  must  stand  until  the  negative  of  these 
questions  is  established. 


TO  BAPTIZE— TO  MAKE  DRUNK. 

APPROPRIATION. 

OJfJa  di  Tivaq,  ot,  imidav  axpoOcup^axz^  yivcovrat,  rph  reXiux;  (ia-rTiaOr^vat. 

Philo,  ii,  478.     0?i  Contemp.  Life. 

I  know  some,  who,  when  tbey  becomo  slightly  intoxicated,  before 
they  become  thoroughly  drunk. 

Baptism  by  Wine-drinking. 

"I  know  some,  who,  when  they  become  slightly  intoxi- 
cated, before  they  become  thoroughly  drunk,  make  provision 
for  to-morrow's  drinking  by  contribution  and  tickets." 

Such  use  of  /Sarn'Cw  is  to  be  regarded  as  proof  that  tliis 
word  had  secured  to  itself  the  power  to  express,  directly,  the 
influence  of  wine-drinking, — to  make  drunk. 

1.  The  ground  of  this  conclusion  is  found  in  prevailing 
and  persistent  usage  of  the  same  phraseology  and  with  the 
same  application. 


TO    BAPTIZE — TO    MAKE    DRUNK.  85 

In  Classic  Baptism  (p.  317),  will  be  fouud  the  following 
quotations:  "You  seem  to  be  made  drunk  (baptized)  by  un- 
mixed wine."  "  Then  making  drunk  (baptizing),  he  set  me 
free."  "  Having  made  drunk  (baptized),  Alexander  by  much 
wine."  "  "Wine  makes  drunk  (baptizes)."  "I  am  one  of  those 
made  drunk  (baptized),  yesterday."  "  Making  themselves  drunk 
(baptizing),  out  of  great  wine-jars."  "  Made  drunk  (baptized), 
by  yesterday's  debauch."  "  JSTot  yet  made  drunk  (baptized)." 
These  quotations  are  from  various  writers,  separated  from 
each  other,  geographically,  widely,  and  extending  through 
a  space  of  time  exceeding  five  centuries.  In  addition  to  this 
the  fact  (drunkenness)  to  which  the  word  was  applied  being 
of  daily  occurrence,  and  extending  from  generation  to  gene- 
ration, it  could  not  but  be,  that  any  word  used  to  designate 
it  must  be  in  continual  use.  This  is,  farther,  shown  to  be 
true  from  the  form  of  use.  It  is  employed  absolutely,  with- 
out any  helping  adjunct,  and  without  the  shadow  of  stated 
or  designed  figure.  Unless  the  word  was  in  familiar  use,  it 
would  be  unintelligible  when  thus  thrown  upon  its  power  of 
self-explanation.  But  it  had,  most  clearly,  such  self-explain- 
ing power.  And  now,  if  all  other  usage  of  fta-zi'Coj  were 
blotted  out  of  the  Greek  language,  this  usage  would  live, 
having  life  in  itself,  and  proclaim  from  every  passage — make 
drunk ! 

2.  Proof  of  this  meaning  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  word 
is  not  only  self-explanatory,  but  is  capable  of  being  used,  in 
this  well-understood  sense,  in  explanation  of  what  was  less 
intelligible. 

"  When  an  old  man  drinks  of  the  fountain,  and  Silenus 
takes  possession  of  him,  immediately,  he  is  for  a  long  time 
silent,  and  resembles  one  heavy-headed  and  drunk  (bap- 
tized.)" (Classic  Baptism,  p.  330.)  Here  ^ar^rr^ui  is  used  by 
Lucian,  as  possessed  of  a  meaning  so  unmistakable,  that  he 
considers  it  quite  suflicient,  in  expounding  something  not 
understood,  to  say,  "it  resembles  one  baptized."  Who  will 
say,  this  is  figure,  and  means  that  one  who  drinks  of  the  Si- 
lenic  fount  is  like  one  dipped  in  water,  whelmed  by  a  water- 
flood,  or  sunk  in  the  sea?     All  retreat  under  cloudy  figure, 


86  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

here,  is  gone.  There  is  but  one  meaning  possible.  The 
effects  of  drinking  Silenic  water  are  like  the  effects  of  drink- 
ing wine.  The  effects  of  what  is  not  understood  are  ex- 
plained by  that  which  is  well  understood.  Let  any  man  who 
never  had  explanation  of  this  wonderful  fountain,  ask  Lucian, 
what  is  the  effect  on  the  drinker?  and  his  answer  is, — like 
that  of  wine;  which  makes  a  man  "heavy-headed  and  drunk." 
How  the  theory  of  "dipping,  and  nothing  but  dipping, 
through  all  Greek  literature,"  can  survive  such  usage,  is  for 
others  to  determine. 

3.  Proof  of  this  meaning  is  found  in  the  meaning  of  the 
associated  and  contrasted  word, — axpuOiopaxsq. 

This  word,  in  its  philology,  has  nothing  more  to  do  with 
wine-drinking  than  has  ftuTzrc'Caj.  It  means  "  slightly  armed," 
or  breast  armed.  Yet,  Dr.  Conant  does  not  hesitate  to  trans- 
late it — "slightly  intoxicated" — while  the  contrasted  word, 
/Ja-Tf'^w,  which  every  rational  consideration  requires  to  be 
translated — excessively  intoxicated — he  beclouds  by  translating 
— IV  helm. 

If  there  be  one  half  of  the  evidence  for  translating  the 
former  of  these  two  words  by  "slight  intoxication,"  that 
there  is  for  translating  the  latter  by  excessive  intoxication^  I 
do  not  know  where  it  is  to  be  found.  Reference  may  be 
made  to  Aristotle  iii  Prob.  2,  Erotianus  Oaomast.,  Plutarch 
Sijmj)os.j  Mercurialis  iv  6  Var.  Lect.,  and  Clem.  Alex,  i, 
416,  in  support  of  the  meaning.  And  there  may  be  other 
authority;  but  this  is  enough.  And,  if  so,  why  not  the  more 
numerous  authorities,  and  the  more  varied  evidence,  suffice 
to  establish  the  meaning  of  /Sa-7;t«>,  however  diverse  from 
bare  philology  ?  This  association  of  these  terms  causes  them 
to  react,  the  one  upon  the  other,  in  confirming  to  each,  re- 
spectively, the  meaning  attributed  to  it. 

4.  Proof  of  this  meaning  is  found  in  its  harmony  with  the 
laws  of  language-development. 

Words  have  a  life  like  that  of  the  vine.  They  send  forth 
branches,  which  may  be  either  a  simple  extension  of  all  the 
peculiarities  of  the  parent  stem,  with  entire  dependence  upon 
it;  or,  still  retaining  their  connection,  they  may,  like  the 


TO    BAPTIZE — TO    MAKE   DRUNK.  87 

vine-branch  whose  extremity  is  turned  down  and  planted  in 
the  ground,  make  an  additional  source  of  life  for  themselves; 
or,  yet  farther,  all  dependence  on  the  parent  stem  may  be 
severed,  and,  rooted  in  the  ground,  they  make  a  new  and 
independent  source  of  life  for  themselves,  with  peculiarities 
which  may  be  propagated  still  farther.  When  we  say,  the 
child  grows,  the  plant  grows,  the  population  grows,  there  is 
but  an  extension  of  the  same  conception.  The  man  runs,  the 
locomotive  runs,  the  river  runs,  the  steamer  runs,  the  watch 
runs,  the  candidate  runs,  are  phrases  which  show  not  merely 
an  extension  of  the  original  thought,  but,  also,  that  each  has 
established  a  root  for  itself  amid  the  elements  of  thought. 
To  dip,  to  d)je,  shows  not  merely  an  extension  of  the  original 
act,  or  the  formation  of  an  additional  root,  but  the  dissolu- 
tion of  all  organic  relation  and  the  establishment  of  an  inde- 
pendent life  with  the  power  of  procreation. 

ISTow,  as  fidnru)  gave  origin  to  dye,  through  the  coloring-vat, 
so  ISaTz-t^oj  gave  origin  to  controUbig  influence,  through  mersion 
of  particular  objects,  and  with  this  new  power  applied  to  wine- 
drinking,  it  did,  by  appropriation,  advance  to  the  definite 
and  direct  expression  of  such  influence  in  the  fullest  degree; 
proclaiming  every  baptized  wine-drinker  to  be  made  drunk. 

5.  Proof  is  found  in  the  impracticability  of  any  rational 
introduction  of  figure. 

Imagination  can  do  a  great  deal ;  but  much  that  it  does  is 
without  the  sanction  of  right  reason.  To  expound  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration.  Dr.  Conant  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage :  "  To  overwhelm  (figuratively)  with  an  intoxicating 
liquor,  or  a  stupefying  drug,  that  takes  full  possession  of 
one's  powers,  like  a  resistless  flood ;  or,  (as  the  figure  may 
sometimes  be  understood,)  to  steep  in,  as  by  immersing  in  a 
liquid."  In  what  way,  or  in  what  measure,  this  language 
throws  light  upon  the  case  before  us,  I  cannot  say;  for,  to 
me,  it  is  much  less  intelligible  than  what  it  is  intended  to 
expound.  Does  Dr.  Conant  mean  by  "overwhelm,  tigura- 
tivelj-,"  that  a  mental  picture  is  to  be  sketched  of  wine-casks, 
with  bursting  heads,  pouring  forth  a  vinous  flood,  by  which 
the  drunkard  is  overwhelmed  and  swept  away  ?     Docs  he 


OS  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

mean  b}-  a  "  stiipefj'ing  driig,"  a  liquid,  or  a  solid  ?  Is  stupe- 
faction by  -'figurative  overwhelming,"  accomplished  by  laud- 
anum as  a  sweeping  torrent,  or  by  opium  as  a  falling  and 
crushing  mass  ?  Whether  Dr.  C.'s  good  sense  will  repudiate 
such  figuring  as  this,  (in  which  the  luxuriant  imaginations 
of  other  Baptist  writers  find  delight,)  I  am  quite  at  a  loss  to 
determiu,e  from  his  language. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  "  intoxicating  liquor  or  a  stupefy- 
ing drug  taking  full  possession  of  one's  powers,  like  a  resist- 
less flood,''  I  am  equally  at  a  loss  to  understand.  That  "a 
resistless  flood  takes  possession  of  one's  powers,"  is  a  state- 
ment of  fact  that  I  do  not  remember  ever  before  to  have  met 
with;  and  if  I  had,  I  should  still  have  been  "at  sea"  in  at- 
tempting to  imagine  the  foundation  in  nature  for  such  lan- 
guage. Wines  and  drugs  "  take  possession  "  of  our  faculties; 
overwhelming  torrents  and  floods  sweep  them  away.  "To 
take  possession"  cannot  be  likened  to  "sweeping  away." 
"  Wines  and  drugs,"  therefore,  cannot  be  likened,  in  their 
eflfects  any  more  than  in  their  forms,  to  "  torrents  and  floods." 

But,  Dr.  Conant  does  not  seem  to  be  settled  in  his  own 
mind  as  to  the  nature  or  form  of  this  "figurative  overwhelm- 
ing." We  are  told  that  "the  figure  may  sometimes  be  un- 
derstood, to  steep  in,  as  by  immersing  in  a  liquid."  Is  it 
intended  by  the  emphatic  "steep  »i"  and  "immerse  in  a 
liquid,"  to  necessitate  the  imagining  of  the  drunkard  put  into 
wine,  and  of  the  stupefied  put  into  an  opiate?  Or,  is  the  re- 
iterated inness  to  be  disregarded  and  eftects  only  to  be  re- 
garded ?  But  why  is  the  overwhelming  limited  to  a  "liquid?" 
Does  Dr.  Conant  doubt,  that  a  man  can  be  overwhelmed, 
baptized,  by  chewing  solid  opium,  as  well  as  by  drinking  its 
alcoholic  extract  in  the  sha[)e  of  laudanum?  In  the  case  of 
the  baptized  opium-chewer  must  we  fall  back  for  exposition 
■of  this  word  to  "a  resistless  flood?" 

If  good  sense  is  too  much  shocked  by  such  imaginations 
and  such  inconsistencies,  and  aflirms,  that  all  that  is  meant 
is,  ike  controlling  influence  exerted  by  wines  and  opiates  on  the 
one  side,  and  floods  and  torrents  on  the  other,  rc^jecting  the 
modus,  in  the  one  case  and  in  the  other,  as  having  nothing 


TO   BAPTIZE — TO   MAKE   DRUNK.  89 

m  common,  then  I  ask,  whether  the  Baptist  theory  has  not 
been  rejected,  whether  it  be  made  to  rest  on  the  sine  qua  non 
of  a  dipping,  or  of  an  iutusposition?  And  1  further  ask, 
whether  a  secondary  meaning  has  not  been  establislied — 
controlling  infiuence — with  form  of  act  and  inness  of  position, 
eliminated  ?  And  this  being  granted,  what  escape  is  there 
from  the  meaning  (through  appropriation  to  the  influence  of 
wine-drinking)  ynake  drunk? 

The  reference  to  Basil — Discourse  against  Drunkards,  iii, 
p.  452 :  "  So  also  the  souls  of  these  are  driven  about  beneath 
the  waves,  being  baptized  by  wine  " — is  of  no  value  as  a 
model  for  the  interpretation  of  this  and  similar  passages. 
If  Basil  chooses  to  get  np  a  storm  at  sea,  and  depict  helpless 
wretches  tossed  from  billow  to  billow,  while  held  under  their 
power,  unable  to  escape,  to  show  the  miserable  results  of 
luxurious  living,  or  of  excessive  drinking,  and  to  base  upon 
it  the  conclusion,  that  no  less  overmastering  and  destructive 
is  the  power  of  wine  over  its  votaries,  he  is  at  full  liberty  to 
do  so;  but,  surely,  they  have  no  less  liberty  who  choose  to 
speak  in  unadorned  language,  and  to  declare,  without  a  sea- 
storm,  that  wine  drunk  has  the  power  to  make  drunk.  If  it 
should  please  any  one  to  write,  "  As  the  rising  sun  enlightens 
the  world,  dissipating  the  darkness  of  the  night,  scattering 
its  morning  mists  and  lighting  up  its  valleys,  so  education 
enlightens  a  people,  dispelling  the  darkness  and  doubts  and 
errors  of  ignorance,"  must  we,  therefore,  find  in  the  sober 
utterance — "  he  is  enlightened  by  education,"  all  this  play  of 
the  imagination  ?  Just  as  much  as  in  the  statement,  "  I  was 
yesterday  baptized — made  drunk — by  wine,"  we  must  find 
the  sea-storm  of  Basil,  or  the  dipping,  or  whelming,  or  steep- 
ing of  Baptist  interpreters.  Basil's  figure  is  Comparison, 
ours  is  Metaphor.  No  picturing  can  be  rationally  deduced 
from  such  direct  and  naked  statements  as  those  before  us. 

6.  Proof  may  be  found  in  Baptist  translations. 

Conant  translates, —  "Whelm  —  overwhelm  with  wine." 
Both  these  words  are  continually  used  to  express  tlie  highest 
degree  of  influence  w\t\\o\\.t  suggesting  or  thinking  of  covering 
the  object.     Whether  "covering"  was  in  the  mind  of  Dr. 


90  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

C,  or  not,  I  cannot  tell;  but  very  few  of  his  readers  will  feel 
themselves  called  upon,  by  this  language,  to  tax  their  imagi- 
nations to  find  "  covering  "  for  the  drunkard.  Besides,  the 
phrase  "  overwhelmed  with  wine  "  is  incomplete.  It  is  ad- 
mitted, on  all  hands,  that  drunkenness  is  the  ultimate  thought 
designed  to  be  expressed.  But  drunkenness  can  only  be 
induced  in  one  way — by  drinking ;  this,  then,  being  under- 
stood, {ex  necessitate  rci,)  it  is  unexpressed,  according  to  the 
law  of  ellipsis,  which  omits  that  which  is  most  essential,  and 
which,  therefore,  can  never  fail  to  be  supplied.  If  a  man  is 
overwhelmed  with  wine  bi/  drinking,  he  is  not  overwhelmed 
by  it  as  a  wine  billow.  The  translation  can  only  express  in- 
fluence, without  covering. 

But  Dr.  Carson  says,  (p.  311,)  "The  classical  meaning  of 
the  word  is  in  no  instance  overwhelm.''  "  Literally  it  is  im- 
mersedin  \N\\\e,''  (p.  79.)  Two  such  combatants  as  Conaut 
and  Carson,  the  champions  of  contradictory  meanings  of 
^oKxi'^u}^  the  one  having  emblazoned  on  his  shield  a  rushing 
torrent  for  whelming,  the  other  a  still  pool  for  dipping, 
would  present  a  field  of  contest  which,  for  hard  blows,  might 
be  expected  to  compare  well  with  "  the  gentle  passage  of 
arms  at  A«hby."  But  Dr.  Carson  having  put  the  drunkard 
in  wine,  does,  incontinently,  take  him  out,  declaring  that 
the  point  of  resemblance  is  not  in  the  immersion  at  all,  "but 
between  a  man  completely  under  the  influence  of  wine,  and 
an  object  completely  subjected  to  a  liquid  in  which  it  is 
wholly  immersed,"  (p.  80.)  "There  is  no  likeness  between 
the  action  of  drinking  and  immersion,"  (p.  79.)  "The  like- 
ness is  between  their  eflects,"  (p.  272.)  Let  ns  bring  this 
likeness  to  a  more  definite  point.  Is  wine-influence  resem- 
bled to  the  influence  exerted  by  immersion  over  any  partic- 
ular object, — a  stone,  a  ship,  a  bag  of  salt,  a  human  being? 
As  the  influence  in  each  of  these  cases  differs,  the  resem- 
blance cannot  be  specific;  and  if  you  eliminate  that  which 
is  specific,  you  have  an  abstract  controlling  influence.  We 
are,  then,  under  the  leadership  of  these  Baptist  translators, 
brought  to  this  conclusion, — that  there  is  a  usage  of  /JaTrrj'^ 
in  which  resemblance  rejects  mode  of  action,  rejects  immer- 


TO   BAPTIZE — TO    MAKE   DRUNK.  91 

sion,  rejects  specific  influence,  and  reveals  an  abstract  con- 
trolling influence.  Their  statement,  then,  is  this :  "  A  man 
completely  under  the  influence  of  wine  is  a  baptized  man, 
because  he  is  like  an  object  completely  subjected  to  a  liquid 
in  which  it  is  wholly  immersed — in  so  far  as  it  is  subjected 
to  some  controlling  influence."  A  rather  roundabout  way  of 
reaching  the  truth,  but  better  such  way  than  not  at  all.  Kow, 
this  "controlling  influence,"  in  its  abstract  conception,  elim- 
inated from  the  primary  use,  we  say,  becomes  concrete  in  a 
secondary  use  of  /9a7rT{tw,  capable  of  being  conjoined  with 
any  word  susceptible  of  exerting  such  influence,  and  without 
carrying  with  it  "form  of  action,"  or  "intusposition,"  any 
more  than  specific  influence,  all  of  which  have  been  sloughed 
off",  when  it  assumed  its  abstract  garb. 

The  jy^plication  of  this  word,  (expressive  of  such  secondar}' 
sense,)  to  a  particular  case  in  which  the  influence  was  inva- 
riably the  same,  would,  necessarily,  make  it  expressive  of 
such  influence.  The  list  of  influences  which  are  single  and 
invariable  is  but  limited, — joy,  grief,  riches,  poverty,  honor, 
shame,  learning,  ignorance,  and  innumerable  other  sources 
of  influence,  do  not  belong  to  the  list.  Wine  does;  its  in- 
fluence, as  a  drink,  is  one  and  invariable;  the  controlling 
influence  of  wine — to  be  baptized  by  wine — therefore,  can 
convey  but  one  meaning, — to  make  drunk. 

The  examination  of  this  passage  has  been  thus  particular, 
not  on  its  own  account,  so  much,  as,  being  entirely  removed 
from  all  direct  bearing  on  Christian  baptism,  it  aftbrds  a 
more  favorable  opportunity  for  the  discussion  of  principles, 
than  in  a  case  where  prejudice  miglit  be  supposed  to  dis- 
qualify for  an  impartial  examination.  Novelties  adduced 
to  meet  exigencies  are  suspicious. 


92  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM  BY  DRUNKENNESS. 

VERBAL   FIGURE. 

Kal  l3el3a7:7tff/iivov  e^?  dvacff^r^acav  /.at  o-vov  utzo  zr^q  fiidrji;. 

Jewish  Antiq..  x,  9. 

And  baptized  (mersed)  by  drunkenness  into  insensibility  and 
sleep. 

Baptism  into  Insensibillii/  and  Sleep. 

"  Seeing  him  in  this  state,  and  baptized  into  insensibility 
and  sleep  by  drunkenness,  Ishmael  leaping  up,  with  his  ten 
friends,  slays  Gedaliah  and  those  reclining  with  him  in  the 
drinking-party." 

Gedaliah  was  appointed  to  be  governor  over  the  remnant 
of  the  Jews  after  their  conquest  by  the  king  of  Babylon. 
This  office  he  administered  with  great  consideration  for 
his  sutfering  fellow-countrymen.  Ishmael  was  of  the  royal 
family,  and  had  fled  from  the  country  during  its  troubles, 
but  was  received  with  great  kindness  on  his  return  by  Geda- 
liah. At  a  banquet,  given  for  the  entertainment  of  himself 
and  companions,  he  treacherously  murdered  his  confiding 
benefactor,  as  related  in  the  extract  quoted. 

Translation. — Dr.  Conant  translates,  ^^ plunged  into  stupor 
and  sleep."  This  translation,  like  that  of  Baptist  writers 
generallj",  is  not  a  translation  of  /5a7rrC">,  but  one  made  to 
meet  some  accident  which  rnaj'  pertain,  or  may  be  supposed 
to  pertain,  to  the  particular  baptism  in  hand.  Thus,  a  ship 
baptism  is  translated  s;<6-merge,  to.  meet  the  idea  of  going 
under ;  while  some  other  baptism  is  translated  oi-<?/--whelra, 
to  meet  a  supposed  idea  of  a  flood  going  over  the  object;  and 
yet  another  is  translated  pZ«>?^e,  to  meet  the  supposed  de- 
mand of  the  preposition  dq^  which  is  found  in  the  passage; 
and  so  on.  Now^  these  translations,  evidently,  neither  are 
nor  can  be  in  response  to  the  demand  of  fia-zi'^u)^  but  are 
modelled  after  some  accidental  features  of  the  baptisms; 
and  as  these  change,  so  the  translations  change,  the  word 


BAPTISM   BY   DRUNKENNESS.  93 

itself  remaining  ever  the  same.  For  this  reason,  Dr.  Conant, 
having  given  us,  heretofore,  in  wine  baptisms  the  transla- 
tions "  whelm  and  overwhelm,"  under  the  imagined  pres- 
ence of  a  rolling  torrent,  now  introduces  "  plunge,"  because 
of  the  presence  of  the  preposition,  suggesting  an  act  passing 
into.  But  this  is  not  to  translate  ftaTzriXm.  It  has  been  shown 
in  Classic  Baptism  (p.  294),  that  "plunge"  is  unsuitable  to 
represent  the  Greek  word  in  the  case  of  a  sleep  baptism. 

Pecidiaritij  of  the  jMSsage:  Verbal  Figure. — Baptist  writers 
salute  our  ears  at  almost  every  turn  with  the  cry.  Figure! 
This  is  a  bottomless  abyss,  into  which  all  difficulties  about 
dipping  are  cast  and  buried  out  of  sight.  Not  content  with 
such  use  of  the  term  as  would  enable  them  to  say,  that  in 
such  and  such  cases,  the  word  was  trojoed,  turned  from  its 
primary  sense  to  meet  a  special  application,  they  convert 
''  figure  "  into  a  limner  with  brush  and  pallet  and  ivaier  colors, 
ever  ready  to  sketch  some  marine  view,  enlivened  by  a  tem- 
pest, or  made  picturesque  by  a  company  engaged  in  "  per- 
forming the  act,"  without  which,  neither  literality  nor  figure 
has  any  being.  If  there  is  a  baptism  by  grief,  the  exposition 
is  by  a  dipping  into  water;  a  baptism  by  study,  is  resolved 
by  going  under  water;  a  baptism  by  perplexing  questions,  is 
met  by  an  onrolling  flood  of  waters;  a  baptism  by  famine, 
is  illuminated  by  a  trip  to  the  sea  and  a  sinking  into  its 
waters;  a  baptism  by  wine,  is  expounded  by  an  immersion 
under  the  water.  What  magical  and  infinitely  varied  virtue 
has  water,  that  it  can,  on  demand,  equally  portray  grief  bap- 
tism, study  baptism,  question  baptism,  sleep  baptism,  wine 
baptism,  famine  baptism,  woe  of  spirit,  unnerved  intellect, 
bewildered  faculties,  profound  repose,  utter  destruction,  and 
so  on,  even  ad  injinitum!  Did  ever  conception  bear,  more 
boldly  written  upon  its  front,  "  vagary  of  the  imagination?'' 

The  patent  character  of  this  error  is  made  manifest  in 
another  direction.  Its  advocates  are  compelled  to  apply 
this  florid  picturing  to  one-half  the  cases  in  which  the  word 
is  found  in  the  Greek  Classics.  Was  there  ever  a  word  in 
any  language  which,  through  centuries  of  use,  presented  an 
equally  divided  usage  of  literality  and  highly-wrought  pic- 


94  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

turing  ?  There  is  no  overboldness  in  saying  that  there  never 
was,  and  there  never  will  be,  any  such  word. 

Baptist  theorists  must  pardon  us  for  keeping  green  in 
their  recollection  the  similar  attempt  to  divide  the  domain 
of  fidTZTio  into  equal  parts  of  literality  and  figure,  filling  the 
Greek  language  with  figurative  vat-dippings  as  they  now 
would  fill  it  with  figurative  water-dippings.  But  these  rhe- 
torical dippings  have,  at  last,  with  one  consent,  been  num- 
bered with  commonplace  literalities.  Where,  now,  is  ^dnTio 
used  in  figure?  It  is  extremely  doubtful  whether,  in  the 
primary  sense  of  dipping,  enough  cases  can  be  found  in  all 
Classic  literature  to  require  one-half  the  digits  for  their  com- 
putation. If  the  same  shall  not  be  found  true  of  the  Classic 
use  of  ^aTTTi^u}^  ill  its  primary  sense,  there  will  be  a  close  ap- 
proximation to  it. 

The  passage  before  us  not  only  overthrows  the  Baptist 
theory  for  figurative  exposition,  by  torrents  and  floods,  and 
dippings  and  plungings,  but  establishes  the  true  form  and 
nature  of  a  figurative  use  of  /SarrtTw.  In  every  literal,  pri- 
mary, baptism  there  is  a  baptizing  power,  a  baptized  object, 
and  a  receiving  element.  But  in  literal,  primarj',  baptism 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifierence  whether  the 
object  is  moved  to  secure  intusposition,  or  whether  the  ele- 
ment is  moved  to  embrace  its  object.  In  figurative  baptism, 
therefore,  phraseology  may  be  adopted  which  shall  be  based 
on  the  one  or  the  other  of  tliese  means  to  a  result.  But 
whichever  form  be  selected,  as  these  baptisms  are  for  in- 
fluential, and  not  for  physical  results,  there  will  be  neither 
movement  nor  investment  in  cither  case,  but  simply  a  de- 
velopment of  controlling  influence,  the  character  of  which 
must  be  derived  from  the  elements  which  enter  into  any 
particular  baptism. 

The  phraseology  of  the  baptism  before  us  is  based  on  the 
language  which  is  appropriate  to  the  movement  of  an  object, 
in  order  to  its  being  enclosed  in  the  receiving  element.  In- 
asmuch as  this  is  the  first  baptism,  expressed  in  verbal  figure, 
that  we  have  encountered,  (Classic  Baptism  presents  no  such 
case,)  it  has  a  just  claim  to  our  very  special  attention. 


BAPTISM    BY   DRUNKENNESS.  95 

''EII — Us  translation. — Let  us  first  determine  what  should 
be  the  translation  of  the  preposition  ek^  which  must  control 
the  form  of  the  thought. 

This  preposition  may  denote  a  demand  for  inness  of  posi- 
tion, by  passing  into,  or  it  may  indicate  the  point  toward 
which  movement  or  thought  tends,  and  at  which  it  rests. 
Associated  with  verbs  expressive  of  movement,  or  which 
make  demand  for  inness  of  position,  this  preposition  must 
be  translated  by  into,  unless  imperative  reasons  can  be  shown 
for  translating  it  to,  unto,  or  for. 

That  it  should  be  translated  into  in  this  passage,  we  con- 
sider to  be  conclusively  established : 

1.  Because  of  the  nature  of  the  verb  with  which  it  is  as- 
sociated. That  ^anri^u)  makes  demand  for  intusposition,  in 
primary  use,  is  in  proof.  It  does  not  indicate  movement  to- 
ward, or  rest  at,  a  point.  The  association  of  this  preposition 
with  such  a  word,  therefore,  forbids  a  merely  telle  character 
being  attributed  to  it,  and  positively  requires  intusposition. 

2.  Because  the  association  of  kindred  verbs  with  this 
preposition  does,  admittedly,  produce  this  result.  Take,  for 
example,  the  following:  El':  o-vov  xara-eaovriov — "Having fallen 
into  sleep  "  ( Clem.  Rom.) — not  unto,  nov  for,  sleep.  Uapaneauuaa 
elq  ;ii6rjv — "  The  feast  passing  into,  not  unto,  nor  for,  drunk- 
enness." (Clem.  Alex.)  Ek  dvaaer^ffcav  uTrofspo/iivrj — "Carrying 
down  into,  not  unto,  nor  for,  insensibility."  [Clem.  Alex.)  "  In 
novam  legem  inducti  sunt.  In  Evangelium  inducti  sunt. 
Inducted  into,  not  unto,  nor  for,  the  new  law,"  &c.  {Ambrose.) 

Because  another  translation  than  into  may  make  good 
sense,  or  declare  a  true  sentimQnt,  gives  no  sufficient  proof 
that  it  is  accordant  with  the  form  of  the  phraseology,  or  is 
reached  by  the  route  which  the  phraseology  suggests.  These 
figurative  phrases  are  founded  in  literal  use.  Kara-ovrtffCrjvai 
ek  6aXdff(Tav — "  To  be  svvallowed  down  into  the  sea,  not  unto, 
nor  for,  the  sea."  {Clem.  Alex.)  "Emergere  in  lucem — to 
emerge  into,  not  tinto,  nor  for,  the  light."  {Tertull.) 

In  every  case  of  baptism,  the  baptized  object  passes  out  of 
one  position  or  condition,  and  passes  into  another.  Some- 
times both  of  these  (always  implied)  are  expresslj  stated — 


90  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

h  awfpoawr^q  tl^  r.op'Mav  ^aizzi'^ouat — "  They  baptize  out  of  tem- 
perance into  foriHcation."  {Clem.  Alex.)  So,  literally,  /xezd^sc^: 
ix  Tdnou  ££?  t67:()v — "  You  may  lead  our  bodies  out  of  one  place 
into  another  place."  [Clem.  Alex.) 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  bring  into  view  the  fact, 
that  the  translation  contended  for  rests  on  established  usage 
in  kindred  phrases,  as  also  in  the  nature  of  things.  Un- 
necessary departure  from  this  usage  and  requirement  is  with- 
out apology. 

3.  Because  the  laws  of  language  require,  that  in  the  trans- 
ference of  words  from  literal  to  ideal  relations,  verbally  cor- 
respondent, for  the  purpose  of  deducing  a  new  sentiment 
from  these  new  relations,  the  words  must  be  used,  indi- 
vidually, in  their  ordinary  signification;  the  thought  being 
evolved  from  the  incongruous  combination. 

In  such  phrases — as  dipping  into  mathematics;  wallowing 
in  vice;  petrified  ?(?<;//*  horror;  troubles  rolling ot/^r  us;  rising 
to  the  occasion ;  sinking  laifo  despair — there  is  verbal  figure ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  phraseology  presents  the  figure  or  form 
of  a  literal  transaction.  Each  word,  also,  presents  itself  in 
its  own,  and  not  in  a  borrowed  character.  Interpreting  on 
this  basis,  we  soon  encounter  "a  fault;"  dipping  will  not 
carry  us  "into"  mathematics;  incongruous  materials  have 
been  brought  together,  and  are  insusceptible  of  adjustment 
without  some  modification.  Where  shall  it  be  made?  Let 
us  resolve  the  phrase  into  its  elements,  and  examine  them 
separately.  "Dip  into"  group  together,  and  "  mathema- 
tics" stands  alone.  Can  this  word  be  modified  ?  It  cannot 
be  changed  into  geography,  or  grammar,  or  j)ldlosophy,  for  this 
would  not  modify  the  statement,  but  convert  it  into  some- 
thing wholly  diverse.  But  cannot  it  be  imagined  to  be  water, 
or  oil,  or  milk,  or  soft  clay?  Not  rationally  ;  "  diiiping  into" 
any  of  these  things  would  throw  no  light  on  dipping  into 
mathematics;  such  imaginations  would  be  labor  lost;  you 
must  convert  them  back  again  into  the  reality.  But  would 
it  not  help  to  solve  the  meaning  of  such  associations  of 
words?  Not  at  all;  "mathematics"  (or  whatever  else  in 
like  phraseological  combinations  may  take  its  place)  is  a 


BAPTISM    BY   DRUNKENNESS.  97 

fixed  quantity;  it  allows  of  no  modification;  and,  because 
it  does  not,  we  are  struck  with  the  incongruous  materials 
brought  together,  and  we  seek  for  explanation  in  the  other 
member  of  the  phrase. 

And,  here,  in  "  dip  into,"  we  find  an  every-day  acquaint- 
ance, belonging  to  the  water,  or  other  easil}'  penetrable  sub- 
stance, to  which  we,  thus,  have  ready  access  without  any 
metamorphosis  of  "  mathematics."  Understanding  the  func- 
tion of  "  dip  "  to  be  to  place  its  object,  by  a  slight  force,  for 
a  slight  period  of  time,  slightly  beneath  the  surface,  we  now 
reject  the  idea  of  the  fluid  element  and  the  form  of  action, 
as  not  suited  to  the  case,  and  carry  back  "dip  into"  to  its 
novel  relation,  cheerfully  assuming  the  character — to  engage 
slightly  in;  and,  in  this  new  character,  "mathematics" 
promptly  affiliates  with  this  verb,  and  its  satellitic  preposi- 
tion. The  form  of  verbal  figure  remains,  and,  through  that 
form,  the  meaning  may  be  traced  by  the  uninformed  of 
every  generation ;  but  to  say  that  I  must  go  through  this 
process  every  time  I  meet  with  such  a  phrase,  is  to  talk  most 
irrationally;  the  meaning  being  once  established,  it  becomes 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  and  thenceforth  gives  direct  ex- 
pression to  the  thought.  The  members  are  no  longer  dis- 
jecta membra^  but  established  in  organic  union  with  a  newly 
developed  life.  And  it  is  the  freshness  of  this  new  life,  like 
the  sparkle  of  newly  opened  wine,  which  gives  the  figure  its 
power,  and  leads  Carson  to  say,  "  the  first  use  of  the  figure 
is  the  best." 

All  the  other  phrases  are  to  be  expounded  in  a  similar 
manner.  "Vice  "  is  not,  by  the  force  of  imagination,  to  be 
converted  into  a  mudhole;  but  from  the  associate  member, 
through  its  physical  relations,  we  adduce  the  idea  of  a  bestial 
practice  of  vice.  "  Horror"  is  not  to  be  changed  by  the  force 
of  imagination  into  a  liquid  holding  some  mineral  in  solution, 
but  from  "  petrify,"  in  physics,  we  eliminate  the  idea  of 
^Hncajmcity  to  use  our  faculties.'''  It  is  at  war  with  our  con- 
sciousness, and  with  the  laws  of  mind,  to  suppose  that 
familiar  combinations  of  this  character  are,  or  can  be,  treated 


yO  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

as  unknown  quantities  needing  to  be  resolved  and  reduced 
to  an  intelligible  proposition  every  time  they  are  met  with. 

When  Josephus  associates  together  "  baptize  (merse) 
into,"  and  "insensibility  and  sleep,"  he  brings  together  in- 
congruous materials,  quite  insusceptible  of  combination 
under  a  literal  interpretation  of  individual  words.  But  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  Josephus  writes  rationally;  and  that 
there  was  a  rational  combination  of  these  materials  in  his 
mind.  Seeking  to  discover  what  this  was,  we  find  the 
phrase  made  up  of  a  variable  and  a  fixed  element.  "  Insensi- 
bility and  sleep  "  are  fixed  quantities  in  their  own  nature,  and 
must  remain  as  they  are,  or  the  life  of  the  passage  perish. 
"Baptize  (merse)  into"  is  a  variable  quantity:  1.  As  to 
form  of  action;  2.  As  to  the  nature  of  the  enclosing  ele- 
ment; 3.  As  to  the  character  of  its  objects;  4.  As  to  influ- 
ences consequent.  Here  is  a  wide  field  from  which  to  select, 
or  out  of  which  to  construct  some  modifying  element.  In 
seeking  for  such  element  we  are  led  to  reject,  1.  Any  definite 
form  of  action;  2.  To  reject  the  ideaof  intusposition,  (1),  be- 
cause it  is  impossible  to  apply  it  actually;  (2)  because  it  is  just 
as  impossible  to  conceive  of  it  imaginatively ;  (3)  because 
intusposition  in  any  liquid  wouhl  be  destructive  to  a  human 
being;  therefore  the  historian  did  not  conceive  of  Gedaliah 
as  put  within  either  "insensibility  or  sleep"  conceived  of 
as  liquids;  (4)  because  any  such  conception  is  as  unneces- 
sary as  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  things. 

But  while  we  reject  intusposition  as  inapplicable  in  any 
form  to  "  insensibility  and  sleep,"  we  accept  it  as  inherent  in 
the  phrase  "  baptize  (merse)  into,"  and  we  look  on  while  it  ex- 
ecutes its  functions  upon  a  flint  rocJi,  and  we  say,  that  will  not 
answer;  here  is  intusposition  without  influence,  but  the  rela- 
tions in  the  passage  exhibit  influence  without  intusposition. 
We  look  on  upon  a  second  baptism,  and  witness  a  ship  and 
crew  go  down  into  the  sea.  Here  is  both  intusposition  and 
influence,  yet  it  is  not  the  kind  of  influence;  this  is  destruc- 
tive, that  of  the  passage  is  not.  We  become  spectators  of  a 
third  baptism,  that  of  a  porous  body  put  into  oil  and  remain- 
ing there  for  an  indefinite  period;  when  brought  out  it  is 


BAPTISM   BY   DRUNKENNESS.  99 

neither  like  the  "flint,"  impervious  and  uninfluenced;  nor 
like  "the  ship  and  crew,"  destroyed;  hut  it  is  penetrated  and 
pervaded  and  brought  thoroughly  under  the  peculiar  oily 
character  of  the  material  withiu  which  it  has  been  placed. 
We  have,  at  last,  what  the  passage  demands;  rejecting  the 
means  by  which  the  result  has  been  secured  (intusposition), 
as  having  no  footing  in  the  case,  we  have  left  controlling  in- 
jluence,  which  meets  all  the  exigencies  of  the  passage,  ren- 
dering its  elements  congruous  and  its  sentiment  appropriate. 

From  all  which  we  draw  these  conclusions:  1.  BaTzzi'^u)  dq^ 
when  used  in  relations  not  admitting  of  intusposition,  but 
of  influence,  drops  the  former  idea  and  expresses  directly  the 
idea,  of  controlling  injluence.  2.  Intusposition  is  limited  to  the 
verb  and  its  preposition,  and  is  to  be  applied  (1)  To  their 
physical  relations,  that  out  of  it  may  be  extracted  the  thought 
demanded  by  the  passage;  and  (2)  As  suggesting,  by  their 
verbal  form  and  present  relations,  the  source  and  character 
of  the  developed  influence.  3.  The  conversion  of  these 
terms,  expressive  of  influence  endlessly  varied,  into  one 
imaginary  fluid,  is  absurd,  because  one  fluid  could  not  ex- 
press varied  influences ;  to  convert  them  into  diverse  fluids 
is  no  less  absurd,  because  no  fluids  could  express  the  dis- 
tinctive character  of  the  influences.  4.  The  term  expressive 
of  the  source  and  nature  of  the  influence  to  be  expressed, 
must  remain  without  change.  Its  duty  is  exhausted  when, 
at  the  demand  of  /Sarrt'Cw  ek,  it  communicates  its  distinctive 
influence  in  all  the  fulness  of  its  power. 

When  Gedaliah  was  "  baptized  (niersed)  into  insensibility 
and  sleep,"  he  was,  according  to  the  legitimate  and  only 
rational  interpretation  of  the  verbal  figure,  brought  under  the 
controlling  influence  of  insensibility  and  sleep. 

4.  Why  emjoloy  verbal  figure?  Not  merely,  or  mainly,  for 
rhetorical  embellishment,  but  to  limit,  and  define  with  pre- 
cision, the  thought  intended  to  be  conveyed.  BaTzrt':^  ex- 
presses, definitely,  the  condition  of  intusposition ;  but  the 
efiects  of  intusposition  are  various,  and  it  cannot  express 
these  influences  distinctively;  it  takes,  therefore,  secondarily, 
that  which  is  common  to  all  these  influences,  namely,  con- 


100  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

trollhig  power.  "^^Then  the  word  is  used  Id  this  sense,  it  takes 
its  coloring  from  its  adjunct.  Sometimes,  as  ah-eady  stated, 
this  is  single  and  invariable,  (as  in  the  direct  influence  of 
wine,)  in  which  case  it  becomes  the  absolute  measure  and 
representative  of  that  particular  influence.  But  where  di- 
verse influences  proceed  from  the  same  source,  it  is  not 
sufliciently  explicit  to  speak  of  a  baptism  from  that  source 
while  wishing  to  express  some  one  of  its  influences.  This 
can  only  be  done  by  express  statement,  which  w^ill  take  the 
form  in  the  passage  under  consideration — verbal  figure — d^ 
being  employed,  with  the  proper  word,  to  denote  the  source 
and  specific  character  of  the  influence  desired.  Thus,  while 
the  influence  ofiuine  is  specific,  that  of  drunkenness  is  diver- 
sified. It  may  baptize  into  shame,  or  poverty,  or  crime,  or 
many  other  things.  Josephus  wished  to  express  a  specific 
result  of  this  baptism ;  therefore,  he  says,  not  merely,  "  bap- 
tized by  drunkenness,"  but  "baptized  by  drunkenness  into 
insensibility  and  sleej)."  The  passage  is  important  as  being 
rare  in  its  form,  (never  met  with  in  the  classics,)  and  now 
first  appearing.  It  is,  also,  eminently  instructive,  throwing 
its  light  both  backward  and  forward,  along  the  path  of  this 
inquiry.  We  shall  meet  with  it  again,  under  noticeable  cir- 
cumstances, before  we  get  through.  It  expresses  influence  in 
the  most  specific  manner  and  in  the  most  perfect  measure. 


CEREMONIAL  PURIFICATION. 
BAPTISM    BY    SPRINKLING    HEIFER   ASHES. 

Tvhq  »uv  aT.o  vexptio  fie/xtair/xivoo':,  r^?  ziifpaq  6).{yov  eh  -r^fr^'>  hiivTt^  xaX 

■     uaawTzov^  ^aT^zitravTc:  rt  xaX  t^c  rl(fpa^  xaurr^^  ei<;  ~rjY,  ep/'jatvuv  rping 

xa\  ii3d6jijj  Toiv  r;iiepmv.  Jeivish  Autiq.,  iv,  4. 

'•  Those,  therefore,  defiled  by  a  dead  body,  introducing  a  little  of 
the  ashes  and  hyssop-branch  into  a  spring,  and  baptizing  of 
this  ashes  (introduced)  into  the  spring,  they  sprinkled  both 
on  the  third  and  seventh  of  the  days." 


BAPTISM   BY   HEIFER   ASHES.  101 

APPROPRIATION. 

The  ritual  observance  referred  to  in  this  extract,  is  de- 
scribed in  the  book  of  iN"umbers,  chap.  xix.  "  He  that  toucheth 
a  dead  body  shall  be  unclean  seven  days.  He  shall  purify 
himself  with  it  (the  heifer  ashes)  on  the  third  day,  and  on 
the  seventh  day  he  shall  be  clean.  .  .  .  This  is  the  law.  .  .  . 
They  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purifica- 
tion for  sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel: 
And  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water, 
and  sprinkle  it  upon  him  that  toucheth  one  dead.  .  .  .  But 
the  man  that  shall  be  unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  congregation,  because  the 
water  of  purification  has  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him;  he  is 
unclean." 

Reference  is  made  to  this  rite,  as  to  its  nature,  purpose, 
and  mode  of  performance,  in  Hebrews,  9 :  13.  "For  if  .  .  . 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh."  .  .  . 

The  occasion  which  induced  the  historian  to  refer  to  the 
rite,  was  the. purification  of  the  people  consequent  upon  the 
death  of  Miriam,  sister  of  Moses.  Philo,  the  Jew,  quoted 
by  President  Beecher,  also  refers  to  this  rite  in  the  following 
language  :  "  Moses  does  this  philosophically,  for  most  others 
are  sprinkled  with  unmixed  water,  some  with  sea  or  river 
water,  others  wnth  water  drawn  from  the  fountains.  But 
Moses  employed  ashes  for  this  purpose.  Then,  as  to  the 
manner,  they  put  them  into  a  vessel,  pour  on  water,  then 
moisten  branches  of  hyssop  with  the  mixture,  then  sprinkle 
it  upon  those  who  are  to  be  purified." 

These  quotations  from  Moses,  and  Paul,  and  Philo,  and 
Josephus,  place  this  ordinance  before  us  in  all  its  character- 
istics, in  the  clearest  manner.  It  is  an  ordinance  which  con- 
templates persons  as  being  in  a  certain  state,  or  condition, 
and  proposes  to  take  them  out  of  that  state,  or  condition, 
and  to  put  them  into  another;  or,  to  speak  more  definitely, 
it  regards  persons  as  being  in  a  state  of  ceremonial  defile- 
ment, and  proposes  to  change  that  state  by  the  application 


102  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

of  a  peculiar  purifying  influence,  and  so  bring  them  into  a 
state  of  ceremonial  purity. 

The  elements,  then,  which  claim  attention  are,  1.  A  state 
of  ceremonial  defilement;  2.  A  state  of  ceremonial  purifica- 
tion ;  3.  Ashes,  (mixed  with  spring-water  as  a  vehicle,)  the 
purifying  agency;  4.  Sprinkling,  the  mode  of  applying. 

By  the  ordinance,  possessed  of  such  features,  a  baptism 
was  effected,  according  to  the  declaration  of  Josephus,  "bap- 
tizing them  of  ashes  by  sprinkling."  The  task  before  us  is 
to  harmonize  the  use  of  baptize  with  "ashes,"  (when  no  en- 
velopment and  consequent  smothering  takes  place,)  and  with 
"sprinkling,"  with  which  it  is  said  to  be  irreconcilable. 
The  discussion,  herein  involved,  demands,  first  of  all,  the 
determination  of  the  fundamental  character  of  the  Greek 
word. 

If  this  word  does  express  "a  definite  act,  dip,  and  nothing 
but  dip,  and  has  no  other  meaning  through  all  Greek  litera- 
ture," then  our  task  is  ended  before  commenced;  for  no  one, 
not  moonstruck,  would  attempt  to  perform  the  act  of  dipping 
by  the  help  of  "ashes,"  or  the  modal  act  of  dipping,  by  the 
alien  modal  act  of  sprinkling.  If,  however,  this  word  is  no 
more  a  word  modally  executive  than  darkness  is  light,  but 
demands  for  its  object  state,  or  conditio?!.,  characterized,  pri- 
marily, by  envelopment,  subject  to  development  under  the 
laws  of  language,  and  modification  under  the  exigencies  of 
usage,  like  all  other  words,  then,  it  will  hardly  be  regarded 
as  proof  of  hopeless  lunacy  to  attempt  to  show,  that  a  man 
broufjld  into  a  thorougldy  changed  state  by  the  sprinkling  of 
ashes-water,  may  be  called  a  "baptized"  man. 

The  true  import  of  this  word  has  been  discussed,  at  large, 
in  Classic  Baptism.  For  the  conclusions  there  reached,  so 
far  as  they  are  my  own,  I  ask  no  deference  to  be  paid  by  any 
Baptist  scholar;  but  inasmuch  as  many  of  the  first  scholars 
of  the  country  have  made  these  conclusions  their  own,  by  a 
cordial  approval,  I  feel  bound  to  afiirm  their  judgment,  and 
to  say,  that  it  is  a  settled  point,  that  i3a-ri'>  does  not  belong  to 
the  class  of  verbs  which  expresses  modal  action,  but  to  the 
^class  of  verbs  making  demand  tor  state,  or  condition. 


BAPTISM   BY   HEIFER   ASHES.  103 

It  lias  been  shown  that  the  characteristic  state,  or  condi- 
tion, secured  for  its  object  by  /Ja-nt*",  was  one  calcukxted  to 
exert  over  such  object  the  most  thorough,  penetrating,  per- 
vading, and  controlling  influence;  and  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  did  (exceptional  cases  aside)  exert  such  influence. 

It  has  been  shown  that  these  resultant  influences  varied 
greatly  in  their  character,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
object  and  of  the  investing  element,  while  they  retained  the 
common  feature  as  to  the  measure  of  influence,  namely,  con- 
trolling power. 

It  has,  also,  been  shown,  and  it  is  a  vital  point,  determin- 
ing the  whole  usage  of  the  word,  that  to  this  state,  or  con- 
dition induced,  there  is  no  limitation  of  time;  the  object 
may  be  taken  out  of  such  condition,  but  only  by  a  force 
counteracting  and  overcoming  the  work  of  fia-~iXa). 

Such  are  the  outstanding  features  in  the  physical  history 
of  this  word. 

To  bring  this  word  of  great  power,  of  wide  range,  and  of 
facile  adaptation,  out  of  the  world  of  physics,  and  to  intro- 
duce it  into  the  wider  realm  of  metaphysics — of  mind  and 
morals — as  applicable  to  the  many  and  varied  cases  of  con- 
trolling influence  there  to  be  met  with,  required  only  an 
extension  of  the  manner  in  which  the  influence  should  be 
exerted.  That  is  to  sa}^  when  the  intellectual  or  moral  con- 
dition of  persons  or  things  was  to  be  changed  by  any  in- 
fluence competent  to  exert  a  controlling  power,  but  not 
adapted  to  influence  through  envelopment,  or  the  object  not 
adapted  to  receive  influence  through  such  method  of  opera- 
tion, then  such  change  of  condition,  however  eft'ected,  should 
be  equall}'  expressed  by  that  same  word  which,  in  physics, 
expressed  thorough  change  of  condition,  through  envelop- 
ment. Baptist  writers  do  not  deny  the  extension  of  the  word 
beyond  physics;  but  they  say  the  meaning  of  the  word  re- 
mains unchanged. 

The  domain  of  error  is  a  wide  one,  and  furnishes  many 
roads  along  which  its  subjects  may  travel.  Our  Baptist 
friends  having  laid  down  a  principle,  rather  to  burden  others 
than  to  govern  themselves,  sliow  neither  agreement  nor  con- 


104  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

sistency  in  maintaining  it.  Those  who  insist  that  the  word 
means  modal  act  should,  in  obedience  to  their  principle, 
carry  a  dippbif)  through  all  the  metaphysical  usage  of  the 
word.  Dr.  Carson  attempts  it;  but  even  his  courage  fails, 
and  after  appealing,  most  unreasonably,  to  figure  for  aid, 
gives  up,  times  without  number,  and  asks,  "Is  not  the  re- 
semblance between  the  effects?"  Those  who  insist  on  modal 
act,  (bat  inconsistently  allow  of  half  a  dozen,)  run  through 
the  catalogue,  dipping,  plunging,  sinking,  wdielming,  sub- 
merging, and  overwhelming,  mind  and  spirit;  yet  all  will 
not  do;  they,  too,  have  to  fall  back  on  7xsuUs,  to  the  abandon- 
ment of  «c/.s.  Some,  in  their  extremity,  when  hard  pressed 
summon  "intusposition"  to  their  aid;  but  if  the  word  is  ex- 
pressive of  an  act,  it  is  not  expressive  of  intusposition, — a 
condition;  and  an  appeal  to  this,  is  abandonment  of  "one 
meaning"  alike  in  physics  and  in  metaphysics.  Nor  am  I 
alone  in  making  this  affirmation.  Hear  the  language  of  a 
tried  friend:  "The  baptism"  (dipping)  "and  the  state  that 
follows  have  no  necessary  connection."  {Carson,  p.  287.) 

"  Nothing  can  exceed  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  the 
word  should  designate  both  the  immersion,"  {dipping,  in  Dr. 
C.'s  vocabulary,)  "and  the  state  after  immersion."  {Carson^ 
p.  283.)  Baptists,  then,  must  make  their  choice  (their  great 
controversialist  being  judge,)  between  act  and  state  ;  but  if 
they  choose  "  act"  for  physics,  and  insist  on  the  same  mean- 
ing (only  in  figure),  through  all  metaphysical  usage,  they 
must  not  slip  in  "  absurdity,"  stcde,  to  help  them  out  of  a 
dilemma.  If  they  choose  "  state,"  then  they  must  abandon 
"  act,"  as  also  the  theory  on  which  they  have  builded  up 
their  system,  and  reconstruct  it  after  another  model. 

From  the  utter  failure  of  Baptist  writers  to  carry  "  the 
same  meaning "  from  physical  to  metaphysical  relations 
(when  the  life  of  their  most  cherished  theory  depended  on 
its  being  done),  we  may  draw  the  conclusion,  that  the  de- 
mand that  this  should  be  done  is  a  false  and  impracticable 
one. 

We  doing  avowedly  and  of  free  will  what  they  do  covertly 
and  compulsorily,  occupy  the  vantage-ground  of  harmony 


BAPTISM   BY   HEIFER   ASHES.  105 

with  the  laws  of  language-development,  generally,  and  in 
the  most  eminent  manner,  with  that  closely  related  word 
^dr.Tio^  which  expressing  originally  dipping,  (with  coloring  as  a 
result,)  subsequently  expresses  coloring  without  the  dipping. 

So,  /3a-r{'Cw,  originally  expressing  in  physics,  intuspositioii 
(having  influence  as  a  result);  passing  into  another  realm, 
where  intuspositioii  has  no  place,  expresses  change  of  con- 
dition from  influence  without  the  intusposition.  Therefore, 
in  the  application  of  this  word  to  mental  and  moral  relations, 
we  say,  that  the  idea  of  a  condition  unlimited  as  to  duration 
and  controlling  influence,  is  retained,  while  the  form  of  that 
condition,  causative  of  controlling  influence,  is  dropped:  1. 
Because  there  is  no  possibility  for  it  as  a  reality;  2.  Because 
the  imagination  must  fail  in  its  efforts  to  invest  with  any 
suitable  medium,  and  would  only  perpetrate  a  great  folly  if 
it  could;  3.  Because  the  conceit  which  would  invest  spiritual 
objects  with  physical  elements,  in  order  to  exhibit  influence 
exerted  over  them,  is  an  absurdity. 

"With  this  general  idea  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
of  the  method  by  which  that  meaning  is  reached,  it  becomes 
our  duty  to  show  that  the  word  is  used  in  such  meaning  in 
the  passage  before  us. 

Translation. — "Baptizing  of  (by)  this  ashes  (introduced) 
into  the  spring,  they  sprinkled  (the  defiled)." 

"  Baptizing,"  denotes  here,  as  everywhere,  the  bringing 
into  a  new  state  or  condition,  which  may  be  with  or  without 
intusposition.  In  this  case  without  intusposition.  The  ob- 
ject has  been  in  a  state  of  ceremonial  impurity;  it  is  brought 
into  a  state  of  ceremonial  purity.  This  translation  agrees 
with  our  definition,  is  indicated  by  more  than  a  score  of  cases 
in  Classic  Baptism,  is  in  full  sympathy  with  the  scope  of  the 
passage,  accords  with  the  grammatical  structure,  and  is  de- 
manded by  the  exigency  of  the  case. 

"Ashes"  constitute  the  instrumental  agency  of  the  bap- 
tism. Ashes  are  capable  of  constituting  a  physical  envelop- 
ment, as  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii  abundantly  testify;  but 
what  then  ?  Does  the  passage  require  or  allow  of  such  en- 
velopment ?     Just  as  much   as    many  other   envelopments 


106  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

whiuh  WG  are  called  upon  to  tax  our  imaginations  to  picture. 
Wine  baptizes,  and  wine  is  capable  of  enveloping  as  well  as 
water;  but  does  wine,  where  it  effects  a  drunken  baptism, 
envelop  its  object?  Is  it  not  absurd  to  conceive  of  it  as  so 
doing,  inasmuch  as  it  would  destroy  the  baptism  contem- 
plated, and  effect  another,  wholly  different, — a  drowning 
baptism  ?  Wine  envelopment  (as  in  the  case  of  the  Duke 
of  Clarence),  kills;  and  ashes  envelopment  (as  in  the  case 
of  Pompeii),  kills.  Wine  drank,  baptizes  by  bringing  into 
a  condition  of  intoxication.  Ileifer  ashes  sprinkled,  baptize 
by  bringing  into  a  condition  of  purification. 

Ashes  are  as  competent  to  baptize,  all  Greek  writers  bear- 
ing witness,  as  are  the  mountain  billows  of  the  ocean.  The 
nature  of  the  baptisms  differ ;  but  so  do  baptisms  of  "  armor 
in  marshes,"  of  "  a  bag  of  salt "  in  water,  and  of  a  man  who 
swallows  "  an  opiate."  If  it  wull  give  any  aid  or  comfort  to 
friends  of  "  the  theory,"  they  are  welcome  to  bring  imagina- 
tion into  full  play,  and  to  "figure"  these  falling  drops  of  the 
watery  mixture,  into  the  peltings  of  a  storm,  or  the  rushing 
of  a  torrent,  or  the  dashing  of  bursting  billows,  and  so  form, 
according  to  the  established  mode,  a  well-approved  "  whelm- 
ing;" only,  after  this  play  of  ideality,  come  back  to  the  sober 
confession,  that  heifer  ashes  do  baptize.  "Whatever  influ- 
ence is  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state, 
or  condition  of  an  object,  controlling  and  conforming  it  to 
its  own  characteristics,  is  capable  of  baptizing  that  object." 
(Classic  Baptism,  p.  354.)  Ileifer  ashes  are  capable  of 
effecting  such  change  in  the  condition  of  a  ceremonially 
unclean  man,  and  is,  therefore,  capable  of  baptizing  such 
man. 

"Sprinkling"  this  ashes  is  as  competent  to  baptize  into 
ceremonial  purity,  as  drinking  wine  is  capable  of  baptizing 
into  drunkenness,  or  eating  opium  into  sleep,  or  the  falls  of 
Niagara  into  their  seething  depths.  The  right  arm  of  Bap- 
tist argumentation  against  "sprinkling,"  is,  here,  broken. 
AVe  know  nothing  of  "  one  definite  ad,"  or  "  many  definite 
acts,"  or  "  some  general  act;"  we  make  demand  for  condition^ 
and,  by  that  badge,  as  the  servitors  of  i5a-T£>,  every  act,  mo- 


BAPTISM   BY   HEIFER    ASHES.  107 

dal  or  immodal,  few  or  many,  as  well  as  sweeping  torrents, 
foiling  billows,  rising  floods,  sprinkling  drops,  in  short,  what- 
ever is  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  condition. 

The  amount  of  influence  which  shall  belong  to  this  baptiz- 
ing agency,  and  the  form  through  which  that  influence  shall 
find  development,  belong  solely  to  the  will  of  Him  who  has 
established  the  rite.  Under  his  appointment  "  sprinkling" 
is  as  competent  and  as  every  way  adapted,  to  exhaust  the 
divinely  ordained  influence,  and  convey  it  to  the  defiled  ob- 
ject, and  to  change  its  condition  by  accomplishing  the  most 
thorough  purification,  as  any  other  conceivable  mode. 

Ashes,  then,  are  the  baptizing  agency,  the  sole  agency; 
the  spring-water  was  not  used  as  an  auxiliary  in  eifecting  the 
baptism,  but  merely  as  a  vehicle  for  the  transmission  of  the 
ashes;  Philo,  and  Josephus,  and  Paul,  speak  of  nothing 
but  "  the  ashes."  Sprinkling  is  the  mode  through  which,  by 
divine  appointment,  the  baptizing  agency  operates.  And 
ceremonial  purification  is  the  changed  condition,  state,  baptism, 
accomplished. 

I  only  add  here  another  remark.  The  use  of  iSanzi'^u)  to 
develop  and  express  the  power  of  these  sprinkled  heifer 
ashes,  places  it  in  a  relation  so  identical  in  its  features  with 
that  which  it  occupies  when  expounding  the  power  of  wine- 
drinking,  that  the  influence  exerted  over  the  word  must  be 
the  same  in  both  cases.  Each  of  these  agencies  exerts  a  spe- 
cific influence,  also,  a  single,  invariable,  and  controlling  in- 
fluence; now,  when,  [iar^zi'^io  is  employed  to  express  the 
changed  condition  efiected  by  wine-drinking,  (which  condi- 
tion was  of  frequent  occurrence  and  invariably  the  same,)  it 
could  not  be  without  a  miracle,  but  that  it  must  become 
identified  with  the  specialty  of  that  condition,  and  secure  the 
meaning, — to  make  drunk.  In  like  manner,  used  to  expound 
the  changed  condition  effected  by  this  purifying  rite, — spe- 
cific in  its  character,  and  frequent  in  its  occurrence, — a  mira- 
cle, only,  could  prevent  its  absorbing  that  peculiarity,  and 
expressing  directly, — to  make  ceremonialbj  pure. 

Thus  these  two  meanings,  to  make  drank  and  to  make  pure, 
so  widely  diverse  in  their  uatiire,  would,  as  legitimately  as 


108  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

certainly,  attach  themselves  to  this  word  iu  these  varying 
spheres  of  usage. 

FRIENDS    OF   "THE   THEORY"    NOT    SATISFIED. 

Unimpeachable  as  this  exposition  may  appear,  it  would  be 
strange  if  it  should  be  acceptable  to  the  friends  of  the  Bap- 
tist theory.  Its  acceptance  would  as  hopelessly  baptize  their 
system,  as  the  departure  of  Joseph  us  would  have  baptized 
Jotapata,  and  with  the  same  kind  of  ruinous  baptism. 

Let  us  look  at  their  objections. 

1.  As  to  the  text.  It  is  said  to  be  corrupted.  Bonfrer  sug- 
gests  the   omission   of,  re  xal  t9j<;  Tifpa':  raozrjq  ec^  ^/PJ''^-      This 

suggestion  is  accepted  by  Bekker  and  the  text  of  his  edition 
made  to  conform  to  it.  Dr.  Conant,  also,  adopts  this  read- 
ing. Hudson,  Principal  of  St.  Mary's  Hall,  Oxford,  and  a 
critical  editor  of  Josephus,  refers  to  this  criticism,  but  retains 
the  passage.  He  farther  states,  that  some  copies  have  fierd 
after  /Sarrr/ffavre?.  The  ground  of  this  supposed  corruption, 
as  stated,  is,  "the  evident  repetition  of  some  words."  But 
where  a  good  reason  exists  for  the  repetition  of  words,  there 
is  no  just  ground  furnished  for  the  notion  of  corruption.  Any 
appearance  of  such  words  not  being  needed  may  arise  from 
a  misconception  of  the  passage. 

The  reading  alluded  to  by  Hudson  is  opposed  to  the  idea 
of  any  needed  omission.  A  proper  translation  may  relieve 
the  passage  of  any  apparent  incumbrance.  The  introduc- 
tion of  TauT-^7,  shows  not  mere  repetition,  but  gives  proof  of 
design.  This  textual  difficulty  brings  to  mind  another  case 
of  embarrassment,  in  which  relief  was  sought  by  complaint 
of  the  text.  I  refer  to  the  passage  in  Plutarch,  Life  of  Alex- 
ander, Ixvii,  in  which  the  drunken  revelry  of  the  army  is  de- 
scribed. (Classic  Baptism,  p.  335.)  Du  Soul,  under  the  idea 
that  a  dipping  must  be  got  out  of /Sa7rrt>,  questions  the  read- 
iiio-^ — [iaTZTi%ovT£(;  ix  ruOm ;  but  it  would  have  been  better,  in 
view  of  the  syntax,  to  have  questioned  the  correctness  of  the 
meaning  attached  to  the  word.  Coray  proposes  to  let  the  text 
stand  and  to  interpret  by  the  help  of  figure.  The  construc- 
tion of  the  two  passages  is  similar,- 


BAPTISM    BY   HEIFER   ASHES.  109 

tive.  It  would  be  not  a  little  remarkable  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, that  the  text,  both  of  Plutarch  and  Joscphus, 
should  have  been  corrupted  and  after  precisely  the  same 
style.  The  baptizing  influence  proceeds  out  of  the  wine  in 
the  one  case,  and  out  of  the  ashes  in  the  other  case. 

The  evidence  for  corruption,  certainly,  is  not  very  impres- 
sive. 

Pandiiailon. — But  fault  is  found  not  merely  with  the  words 
of  the  passage,  but,  also,  with  the  punctuation.  Carson  (p. 
288-9)  says,  "  The  punctuation  of  Josephus  is  evidently 
wrong.  .  .  The  comma  ought  to  be  before /?j/6.so79."  He  trans- 
lates, ^'Having  cast  a  little  of  the  ashes  into  the  fountain, 
and  having  dipped  a  branch  of  hyssop  and  also  a  little  of  the 
same  ashes  into,"  &c.  Having  denied  that  ^^'dvre-  could  im- 
merse (dip)  the  ashes,  both  because  of  its  own  nature,  being 
a  "  generic  term,"  and  because  of  the  nature  of  ashes,  which 
"cast"  into  water  floats  on  the  surface;  and  having  trans- 
lated ^a-xiaa\>-z%  dipping,  according  to  the  demand  of  theory, 
(notwithstanding  that  "ashes  floats  on  the  surface,")  he 
makes  provision  to  help  this  latter  word  to  do  what  the 
other  could  not  do  (dip  ashes),  by  putting  them,  first,  "  into 
a  bag,  as  in  cookery."  Surely  this  "dipping"  is  a  thorny 
road  to  travel.  First,  it  denies  the  laws  of  language-de- 
velopment; then,  it  fills  Greek  literature  with  imaginary 
dippings  and  whelmings,  torrents  and  floods;  then,  it  affirms 
corruption  of  text;  then,  errors  of  punctuation;  and,  last  of 
all,  requires  the  manufacture  of  a  bag  to  be  filled  with  ashes, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  dipped,  like  a  pudding  in  cookery  ! 
Could  any  testimony  be  more  conclusive  that  there  is  no 
dipping  in  the  case,  than  the  necessity  for  resorting  to  such 
a  method  in  order  to  secure  its  introduction  ?  But  not  only 
does  this  passage,  in  particular,  reject  a  dipping,  but  there 
is  no  authority,  in  the  general  usage  of  the  word,  for  trans- 
muting (iaTtzi'^ut  into  ISdnTtu.  The  word  and  the  construction 
alike  protest  against  such  an  abuse.  It  puts,  most  lawlessly, 
words  and  syntax  to  the  rack.  The  received  text  and  punc- 
tuation may  stand,  unaltered,  under  a  proper  conception  and 
translation  of  the  passage. 


110  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Translation. — While  Carson  retains  the  common  text,  and 
runs  into  the  extravaj^ances  just  indicated,  Conant  adopts 
the  moditication  proposed,  and,  by  an  altered  punctuation, 
unites  grammatically,  uW^ttov  /5a--/«7avTc?,  dipping  the  liyssop- 
branch.  Provision  has  been  already  made  for  putting  the 
hyssop  into  the  ashes-water;  therefore,  this  new  arrange- 
ment is  uncalled  for.  There  is  no  authority,  but  it  is  against 
all  authority,  to  make  ^a-ri^m  perform  the  office  of  a  dipper 
either  of  wine-cups  or  of  hyssop-branches.  Besides,  it  is  an 
axiom  with  all  Baptists,  that  a  baptized  object  must  be  wholly 
covered;  but  there  is  no  evidence,  and  it  is  contrary  to  reason 
and  the  use  to  which  it  was  to  be  put,  to  suppose  that  this 
branch  was  put  into,  so  as  to  be  wholly  covered  by  the  mix- 
ture, whether  made  in  a  vessel,  as  stated  by  the  Scriptures, 
or  in  a  spring,  as  supposed  to  be  stated  by  Josephus.  The 
translation — "  Introducing  a  little  of  the  ashes  and  the 
hyssop  into  spring-water,  then  baptizing  (purifying)  by  this 
ashes  (put)  into  spring-water,  they  sprinkled  the  defiled" — 
not  only  does  not  betray  any  excess  of  words,  but  those  re- 
peated words,  standing  in  an  entirely  new  relation  and  ex- 
pressing a  Avholly  dift'erent  truth,  do,  and  are  used  in  order 
to,  give  fulness  and  precision  to  the  explanation  of  the  rite. 
The  facts  stated  are,  1.  The  mixture  of  ashes  and  spring- 
water;  2.  The  dipping  of  a  hyssop-branch  into  this  mixture; 
3.  The  purification  of  the  people  b}^  the  ashes,  which  im- 
parted their  virtue  to  the  water;  4.  The  mode  of  applying 
the  ashes  to  the  people  by  sprinkling. 

The  very  pith  and  point  of  the  passage  lies  preciselj^  in 
those  very  words  which  are  to  be  "improved"  out  of  the 
text.  Josephus  states  that  the  purifying  (baptizing)  was 
^^bu  the  ashes. '^  The  verj' point  on  which  Philo,  as  well  as 
a  greater  than  Philo  or  Josephus,  even  Paul  himself,  insists. 
It  is  '■Uhe  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  which 
sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh."  (Ileb.  9  :  13.)  As 
to  the  translation  of  /9a:rr£'>,  to  jyurify  ceremoniaUi/,  let  me 
again,  most  pointedly,  state,  that  it  is  no  nameless  foundling 
brought  forward  for  the  nonce,  to  lay  claim,  under  false  pre- 
tences, to  a  heritage  in  which  it  has  no  right;  but  it  is  the 


BAPTISM    BY    HEIFER    ASHES.  Ill 

offspring  of  lawful  wedlock,  with  title  to  legitimacy  running 
back  through  all  Classic  records,  until,  in  deep  antiquity, 
it  meets  the  ancient  /JarnCw  3'et  in  his  bachelor  days.  The 
genealogical  tree  is  deposited  in  court  and  open  to  the  ex- 
amination of  all  comers. 

If  the  view  now  presented  be  correct,  there  is  deep  sig- 
nificance in  the  words  of  Carson  (p.  62) :  "  The  language  of 
no  writer  can  have  more  authority  on  this  subject  than  that 
of  Josephus.  A  Jew,  who  wrote  in  the  Greek  language  in 
the  apostolic  age,  must  be  the  best  judge  of  the  meaning  of 
Greek  words  employed  by  Jews  in  his  own  time."  That 
sounds  like  the  truth.  And  we  are  here  introduced,  by  a 
competent  witness,  to  the  Jewish  usage  of  ^anri'^ut^  by  one 
who  has  shown  himself  to  be  the  perfect  master  of  its  Classic 
usage  through  all  its  modifications.  This  witness  testifies, 
that  the  Jews  used  /?a-ntw  to  express  the  baptism,  (purifica- 
tion) by  heifer  ashes,  of  defiled  persons,  by  sprinkling  it  upon 
them,  thus  bringing  them  into  a  state  of  ceremonial  purifica- 
tion ;  and  excluding,  most  absolutely,  all  idea  of  a  dipping 
or  a  covering.  As  a  seal  to  this  interpretation  I  close  with 
the  following  quotation  from  Cyril  of  Alexandria  on  Isaiah 

4  :  4,  " /?£;5a-Tj'(7/jt£^a  (j.iv  yap  vox  iv  udart  yuiivu)^  alX  oi)8e  ffTzodu)  daiidXeux^, 

We  have  been  baptized  not  with  bare  water,  nor  yet  by  the 

ASHES  OF  A  HEIFER." 

This  settles  the  attempt  to  "correct  the  text,"  by  settling 
the  sufficiency  of  heifer  ashes  to  baptize.  Inasmuch  as  there 
was  not  to  be  any  Pompeii  baptism  (deadly  suffocation  under 
ashes  sprinkled  "long  enough  to  cover"),  there  was  no  in- 
tuspositioa  in  this  baptism;  and  as  the  only  other  baptism 
within  the  competency  of  these  sprinkled  ashes,  was  a  bap- 
tism of  ceremonial  purification,  we  must  even  be  satisfied 
with  this,  theories  notwithstanding. 


112  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM  BY  HEIFER  ASHES. 


aoTou.  Sirach,  3-4 :  30. 

Being  baptized  from  a  dead  body,  and  touching  it  again,  what 
is  he  benefited  by  his  cleansing? 

Baptism  from  the  Dead. 

The  phraseology  of  this  passage  differs,  materially,  from 
the  preceding.  It  is,  iu  itself  considered,  much  less  definite. 
The  word  ftaKzi^uj  never  declares  the  performance  of  any  defi- 
nite act,  and  not  being  limited  to  physical  results,  it  cannot, 
alone,  declare  any  definite  result.  The  phrase  i3a-ziX6tisvoq  d-u 
vt/.poo  cannot,  without  knowledge  derived  from  other  sources, 
convey  any  definite  and  complete  idea.  This  is  proved  from 
the  insuperable  difficulty  attending  the  interpretation  of  the 
phrase,  fia--iXo!ivM,i  u-kp  -wv  vzxpwv  (1  Cor.  15  :  28).  The  phrase 
not  being  self-explanatory,  and  the  context  not  clearly  indi- 
cating the  bearing  designed  by  the  Apostle,  and  the  possible 
interpretations  being  legion,  no  exposition  has  been  given, 
or  perhaps,  can  be  given,  which  will  command  assent.  The 
verbal  resemblance  to  the  passage  before  us  is  striking,  and 
it  is  within  the  range  of  possibility,  that  both  refer  to  the 
same  thing;  but  this  is  not  very  probable.  Clear  knowledge 
outside  of  the  passage,  is  now,  perhaps,  beyond  our  reach. 
This  embarrassment,  however,  is  eminently  instructive.  The 
Greek  word,  of  itself,  is  dumb  with  silence  to  any  inquiry  as 
to  its  relations  to  physics  or  metaphysics;  and  as  in  both 
these  relations  it  is  controlled  in  specialties  of  form  and  efiect, 
by  things  outside  of  itself,  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  in  the 
interpretation  of  any  given  case,  to  know,  1.  In  general, 
whether  the  baptism  belongs  to  the  real  or  the  ideal.  2.  And, 
in  special,  what  is  the  baptizing  agenc}^  or  element.  "With- 
out sucli  knowledge  no  baptism  can  receive  intelligent  inter- 
pretation. But  this  baptism  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  presents 
no  embarrassment,  because,  while  liis  own  language  does 
not  give  the  needful  information,  we  can  get  it  from  other 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  113 

sources.  By  a  comparison  with  Numbers  xix,  we  learn  that 
the  baptism  is  connected  with  a  particular  rite  for  purifica- 
tion ;  by  a  reference  to  Josephus,  (J.  A.  iv,  4,)  we  learn  that 
the  agency  in  this  baptism  was  heifer  ashes,  and  the  mode  of 
its  use  was  sprinkling;  by  a  reference  to  Josephus,  (J.  A.  x,  9,) 
we  farther  learn,  by  analogy,  that  the  verbal  element  of  such 
baptism  is  y.a6api(TiJ.6v;  as  drunkenness  baptizes  into  a  state  of 
insensibility,  so  heifer  ashes  baptize  into  a  state  of  ceremo- 
nial purity. 

Thus  we  have  all  the  materials  requisite  for  the  most  pre- 
cise determination  of  this  baptism, — "being  baptized  from 
the  defilement  of  a  dead  body,"  by  heifer  ashes,  into  a  state 
of  ceremonial  purity. 

As  to  the  absolute  use  of  /Sa-rc'rw,  (agency  and  element 
eliminated,)  and  the  value  to  be  attached  to  it  in  such  use, 
we  receive  all  needed  information  by  turning  to  analogous 
cases.  Such  is  that  in  Classic  Baptism,  p.  331, — "  I  am  one 
of  those  yesterday  baptized."  Here,  there  is  not  a  ray  of 
light  thrown  on  the  nature  of  the  baptism,  beyond  the  fact 
that  it  was  not  destructive  of  life;  with  this  limitation  imagi- 
nation may  range  ad  libitum  among  pools,  torrents,  and  floods, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  states  of  insensibility,  sleep,  and  puri- 
fication, on  the  other.  The  context,  however,  clips  these 
pinions  by  revealing  a  wine-influence — baptism  into  a  state 
of  drunkenness  by  wine-drinking — and,  thus,  we  learn  that 
the  frequent  use  of  this  marked  word,  in  connection  with  in- 
toxication, rendered  unnecessary  the  constant  repetition  of  the 
verbal  element,  or  the  agency,  but  that  both  were  absorbed 
in  and  expressed  by  the,  now,  enriched  and  pregnant  word 
/SaTTTt'^tw, — "I  was  yesterday  ha-ptlzed^^made  drunk.''  In  like 
manner,  urider  a  similar  condition  of  things,  arising  from  the 
use  of  this  word  in  this  religious  rite,  it  absorbs  the  verbal 
element,  (purification,)  and  the  baptizing  agency^  (heifer 
ashes,)  and  out  of  this  fulness  is  enabled,  in  absolute  use,  to 
give  a  new  utterance, — "  being  baptized =?nrt(;/e  ceremonialli^ 
'pure  from  a  dead  body." 

Thus,  in  this  abbreviated,  absolute  use,  we  have  the  most 
conclusive  evidence  for  the  familiar,  long-continued,,  and  well- 

8 


114  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

utulcrstood  use  of /Ja-r/^w  ill  connection  with  pLfifying  rites, 
and  coming  to  express  directly,  witliont  any  aid,  the  end  of 
sucli  rites,  namely,  io  make  ccremoniaUii  pure.  This  usage, 
and  this  its  necessary  result,  is  confirmed  by  the  historical 
fact,  that  between  the  Son  of  Sirach  and  Josephus,  was  a 
period  of  some  two  hundred  years,  and  between  Josephus 
and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  (who,  as  we  have  seen,  employs 
the  word  in  the  same  manner,)  there  is  an  interval  of  twice 
two  hundred  years.  Familiar  and  long-continued  usage  made 
the  word,  without  adjunct,  plain. 

The  absorption  of  one  or  more  phrases  by  a  single  word, 
which  thenceforward  becomes  the  representative  and  spokes- 
man of  all,  is  a  common  development  of  language.  "lie 
drinks  "  was  once  but  a  member  of  the  sentence, — "  He  drinks 
intoxicating  liquors  to  drunkenness,^'  but,  "  to  drunkenness"  was 
first  dropped  as  sufficiently  expressed  in, — "He  drinks  intoxi- 
catinr/ ]\q{\ors;"  after  a  long  familiarity  with  this  abbreviation, 
it  became  possible  to  make  farther  abbreviation,  and,  "He 
drinks,"  became  perfectly  competent  to  express  the  whole 
sentence,  and  did,  absolutely  used,  express, — lie  makes  him- 
self drunk. 

When,  therefore,  we  say  that  /SaTrrj^o/zew?,  in  this  passage 
is  a  pregnant  word,  has  put  on  a  new  character,  has  attained 
a  secondary  meaning,  we  set  up  no  new  statute,  but  are 
oversliadowed  by  the  protecting  and  vindicating  power  of 
common  law.  It  may  be  used  alone^=" being  purified,"  or 
with  the  cause  of  purification — "being  purified  by  heifer 
asJtes,"  or  with  the  addition  of  the  special  cause  of  defile- 
ment— "being  purified  by  heifer  ashes  from  a  dead  body." 
Ill  this  there  is  no  figure.  Verbal  figure  would  require  a 
recasting  of  the  phrase,  thus:  "being  baptized  (mersed)  by 
heifer  ashes,  from  a  dead  body  into  purification;"  thus  we 
return  to  primary  signification,  and  "  baptize  (merse)"  is  em- 
ployed to  develop  the  full  influence  of  "purification;"  when 
"into  purification"  is  dropped,  "baptize"  becomes  impreg- 
nated with  its  influence,  gives  direct  expression  to  it,  and  all 
appearance  of  figure  has  disappeared.  "Words  which  must 
api»car  as  tropical  to  a  learner  of  a  distant  age,  who  acquires 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  115 

the  language  by  the  help  of  grammars  and  dictionaries,  may 
have  totally  lost  that  appearance  to  the  natives." 

AoOTptjJ, 

There  is  one  feature  of  this  passage  which  is  not  exhibited 
by  that  in  Josephus.  It  is  found  in  the  introduction  of 
k)UTf)uJ,  in  connection  with  this  baptism.  On  the  ground  of 
the  use  of  this  word,  and  the  appointment  of  a  washing 
(Numbers,  19: 19)  subsequent  to  the  purification  by  sprink- 
ling "  the  water  of  separation,"  Baptist  writers  have  claimed 
that  there  was  a  dipinng  in  the  rite,  and  that,  on  the  ground 
of  this  feature,  the  word  "baptize"  is  used  to  describe  it  by 
Josephus  and  others. 

This  position  requires  us  to  examine,  1.  Whether  there 
was  any  "  dipping"  in  the  law  of  the  rite.  2.  Whether  there 
is  any  "dipping"  in  the  word  wdiich  originates  this  interpre- 
tation. 

In  answer  to  the  first  of  these  points,  it  may  be  declared, 
in  the  most  unqualified  manner,  that  no  dipping  is  required  bg 
the  law  of  the  rile.  There  is  none  in  the  original  text,  nor  is 
there  any  in  the  Septuagint  translation.  The  English  trans- 
lation, ^^  bathe  in  water,"  is  greatly  more  limited  in  mode 
and  measure  of  using  the  water,  than  is  that  of  the  Septua- 
gint, ^ouffsrat  udau,  (wash  witk  water;)  and  in  so  far  as  it  strait- 
ens, directly,  or  by  implication,  the  manner  of  using  the 
water,  or  gives  definiteness  to  the  quantity  to  be  employed, 
it  departs  from  the  original.  The  evidence  for  this  so  utterly 
excludes  all  other  view,  that  the  friends  of  "the  theory"  do 
not,  directly,  denj^  it;  but  content  themselves  with  saying, 
that  "a  washing"  maybe  effected  by  a  dipping.  Suppose 
this  to  be  true,  of  what  avail  is  it  to  explain  the  presence  of 
"baptize?"  If  a  dipping  maj'  be  a  "washing;"  the  act  of 
dipping  can  never  be  metamorphosed  into  the  state  of  bap- 
tism. As  there  is  no  "dipping"  in  the  Jewish  huv,  so  there 
is  none  in  the  allusions,  by  Jews,  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law.  Philo  says  nothing  of  *' dipping"  in  speaking  of  the 
rite,  but  refers,  exclusively,  to  the  sprinkled  ashes. 

Josephus  gives  no  hint  of  a  "dipping,"  but  ascribes  the 


116  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

purification  exclusively  to  the  ashes  sprinkled.  Cyril,  (not 
a  Jew,  but  a  student  of  the  law,)  says  nothing  of  a  "  dipping." 
Must  it  not  betoken  great  extremity  when,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, this  modal  act  is  attempted  to  be  fastened  on 
the  rite,  and  not  only  so,  but  to  subject  all  other  features  so 
absolutely  as  to  subordinate  them  to  itself,  and  obliterate  the 
divinely  appointed  title,  ^'-sjmnkUng  the  water  of  separation," 
and  substitute-  in  its  stead  dipping  into  water,  of  a  wholly 
different  character?  Can  "the  theory"  carry  its  votaries 
aii}^  farther? 

But,  let  us  inquire  more  closely  into  this  "  washing."  Was 
it  an}'  constituent,  at  all,  in  the  purification  from  defilement 
contracted  by  "  touching  a  dead  body  ? "  We  say  not :  1.  Be- 
cause the  priest  who  prepared  the  ashes  was  required  "to 
wash  his  clothes  and  flesh  with  water  and  be  unclean  till 
even."  He  had  not  touched  the  dead  body.  2.  He  that 
burned  the  heifer  was  required  "  to  wash  his  clothes  and  flesh 
with  water  and  be  unclean  till  the  even."  He  had  not  touched, 
the  dead  body.  3.  He  that  gathered  the  ashes  was  required, 
"to  wash  his  clothes  and  be  unclean  until  the  even."  He 
had  not  touched  the  dead  body.  4.  He  that  sprinkled  the 
water  of  separation  was  required  "  to  wash  his  clothes,  and 
he  that  toucheth  the  water  of  separation  shall  be  unclean  till 
even."  Neither  of  these  had  touched  the  dead  body.  When, 
now,  he  who  had  touched  a  dead  body,  and  had  received  the 
appointed  means  of  purification,  (the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes,) 
was  subsequently  required,  (in  common  with  all  others  who 
had  been  employed  in  preparing  and  dispensing,  or  acciden- 
tally touching  this  ashes,)  "  to  wash  his  clothes  and  flesh,"  is 
it  not  most  irrational  to  consider  this  as  any  element  in  "the 
purification  from  a  dead  body,'''  since  it  was  common  to  all 
others,  with  himself,  Avho  had  not  touched  a  dead  body  ? 

The  truth  is,  that  while  "the  water  of  separation"  had  the 
power  "to  purify  from  a  dead  bod}',"  yet  in  another  aspect 
it  had  itself  the  power  to  make  unclean ;  and  therefore,  while 
cleansing  from  one  impurity,  its  very  application  made 
another,  and  wholly  dittcrent,  cleansing  necessary. 

That  the  sole  cleansing  power  "from  a  dead  body"  be- 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  117 

longed  to  the  heifer  ashes,  is  evident  from  Ilehrews,  9 :  13, 14, 
"For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of 
the  flesh;  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ  .  .  .  purge 
your  conscience  from  dead  works."  The  blood  of  sacrificial 
victims  and  the  ashes  of  a  blood-red  heifer  symbolized  the 
blood  of  Christ;  the  one  cleansed  ceremonially  and  typicall}'-, 
the  other  cleansed  spiritually  and  efficiently;  neither  required 
supplementary  aid  for  the  perfect  accomplishment  of  their 
allotted  functions.  It  is,  then,  an  incidental  washing,  not 
pertaining  to  the  purification  effected  by  the  sprinkling,  which 
Baptist  interpreters  would  introduce  into  the  rite,  giving  to 
it  a  name  which  converts  the  law-appointed  baptism  by 
sprinkled  ashes  into  a  lawless  dipping  into  water.  Dr.  Car- 
son has  but  little  countenance  from  the  law  and  testimony 
for  his  translation, — "He  that  dippeth  or  baptizeth  himself,  be- 
cause of  a  dead  body,  and  toucheth  it  again,  what  availeth 
his  dipping  or  baptism?"  (p.  6.6.)  He  not  only  falls  into  the 
philological  heresy  which  confounds  "baptizing"  and  "dip- 
ping," but  extends  it  to  >mvw,  making  it,  by  a  double  error, 
first  a  dipping,  then  a  baptism. 

If  the  view  now  presented  be  correct,  all  attempt  to  ex- 
clude the  baptism  as  contained  in  and  effected  by  the  ashes, 
and  to  transfer  it  to  the  appended  "  w^ashing,"  falls  to  the 
ground;  because  it  was  but  a  sequence  to  the  purifying  bap- 
tism by  sprinkling,  and  not  a  part  of  the  rite ;  it  was  some- 
thing to  be  done  after,  and  as  a  consequence  of  the  baptism, 
and  consequently  can  bear  no  part  in  its  explanation. 

Aoorpov — dippiug.  But  let  us  more  particularly  examine 
this  word,  which  is  said  so  distinctly  to  proclaim  a  dipping. 

Dr.  Gale  says,  "  The  Hebrew  word  expressing  the  wash- 
ing required,  *  alwaj's  includes  dipping,  and  never  signifies 
less.'  "  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  The  Greek  word  translating  the 
Hebrew,  requires  an  immersion  of  its  object — complete  cover- 
ing by  the  fluid." 

Tlie  rash  and  erroneous  statements  made,  by  those  who 
should  know  better,  touching  vital  points  of  this  controversy, 
are  most  remarkable. 


118  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

The  statement  by  Gale,  respecting  the  Hebrew  word  for 
washing,  is  without  any  adequate  foundation.  In  many  cases, 
the  manner  of  washing  is  not  indicated  by  circumstances, 
and  the  word  itself,  not  expressing  mode,  we  cannot  have 
any  certain  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  mode.  Others  are 
more  explicit,  either  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  from 
circumstances  mentioned. 

In  Gen.  43  :  31,  Joseph  is  said  to  have  "  washed  his  face," 
after  weeping.  If  this  was  done  by  dipping,  he  was,  most 
probably,  the  only  one  in  Egypt  who  followed  that  mode  of 
face  washing.  It  is,  indeed,  possible  to  dip  the  face  and  thus 
wash  it ;  and  it  is  possible  to  dip  the  beard  and  dye  it ;  but 
Dr.  Carson  thinks  this  so  unreasonable,  while  not  impos- 
sible, that  he  makes  it  a  ground  for  affirming  a  secondary 
meaning  of  i^oltztu).  Here  the  improbability  is  just  as  great, 
and  yet,  to  help  on  "  the  theory,"  we  are  asked  to  believe 
that  an  immodal  verb  has  become  modal,  and  forced  the  great 
ruler  of  Egypt  to  dip  his  face  to  wash  ofl:'  the  tear-marks. 
This  abuse  in  the  interpretation  of  the  word,  is  made  more 
evident  in  the  translation  of  the  Septuagint,  where  it  is  rep- 
resented by  vUru) ;  a  word  which  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  does  not 
mean  to  dip." 

In  Deut.  21 :  6,  certain  persons  are  directed  to  "  wash  their 
hands  over  the  heifer."  When  we  remember  that  j!.lisha 
"  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah,"  and  that  here,  too, 
the  Septuagint  translates  by  vc-tcu,  there  is  but  little  encour- 
agement given  to  a  "  dipping."  In  1  Kings  22 :  38,  the 
armor  of  Ahab,  after  battle,  being  stained  with  blood,  was 
washed.  Is  it  so  necessary  and  so  universal  a  custom  to  dip 
armor,  in  order  to  wash  blood  off  from  it,  that  this  modal  act 
must  be  accepted  without  questioning? 

When  such  cases  are  of  every-day  occurrence,  why  is  it 
that  Dr.  Gale  ventures  to  lay  down  such  a  proposition, — this 
washing  always  includes  dipping  ? 

Dr.  Carson's  claim,  that  the  Greek  word  requires  always, 
"  an  immersion  " — "a  complete  covering"  of  the  object — is 
Dot  more  accurate. 

In  Acts  9 :  37,  the  body  of  Dorcas,  after  death,  was  "  washed 


BAPTISM    FROM    TUB   DEAD.  119 

and  laid  iu  an  upper  chamber."  Was  this  a  case  of  "  im- 
mersion and  complete  covering  ?"  In  Acts  16  :  33,  the  jailor 
took  Paul  and  Silas  and  "  washed  their  stripes."  If  this  was 
by  "dipping,"  it  may  be  put  alongside  of  the  dipping  of 
Joseph's  face ;  being  modelled  after  the  same  manner  of  good 
sense,  only  on  a  larger  scale.  Origen,  (iv,  241,)  speaks  of  the 
bullock  on  the  altar  needing  cleansing — ozufxeva  kouzpoo^  which 
was  done  not  by  dipping,  but  by  pouring,  as  we  are  expressly 
told. 

To  make  good  his  position.  Dr.  C.  refers  to  the  use  of  this 
word  in  cases  of  bathing.  This  reference  assumes,  does  not 
prove,  that  "  bathing,"  in  the  times  alluded  to,  was  by  im- 
mersion and  complete  covering.  This  assumption  has  no 
better  foundation  than  many  others  which  form  corner-stones 
to  "  the  theory." 

There  are  some  bold  and  unquestionable  facts  in  this  direc- 
tion, which,  both  because  of  present  and  general  bearing, 
demand  distinct  presentation. 

Few  persons,  since  the  fall  of  man,  have  equalled  Dr. 
Carson  iu  self-confidence.  When  such  men  err  they  err 
prodigiously  and  persistently ;  for  nobody  is  good  enough 
to  teacli  them.  "  If  the  angel  Gabriel "  were  to  differ  from 
them,  they  would,  (as  this  wise  and  learned  Doctor  says  he 
would,)  "send  him  to  school,"  where  they  taught  the  primer 
and  held  the  birch.  Some  of  these  errors  of  Dr.  C.  have 
been  already  pointed  out,  others  remain  to  be  indicated. 

In  discussion  with  President  Beecher,  this  writer  had  af- 
firmed that  "/^ouw,  like  our  word  bathe,  applied  to  animal 
bodies  only."  This  position,  having  been  refuted  by  an 
amount  of  evidence  which  could  not  be  gainsayed,  was  with- 
drawn, and  this  new  position  taken, — "  But  none  of  the  ex- 
amples prove  that  the  thing  so  washed  was  not  covered  with 
the  water ;  this  is  all  we  want." 

Everything  cannot  be  disproved  at  once.  And  when  Bap- 
tist writers  flee  from  their  present  falling  house,  to  some 
other  refuge,  and  cry,  "  But  you  have  not  shaken  down  this," 
we  can  only  answer,  Get  fixed  in  your  uew^  quarters  and  wait 
your  turn. 


120  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Tliis  Greek  verb  Carson  lias  translated,  in  the  same  pas- 
sage, dip^  and  bathe,  and  wash,  and  immerse,  and  now  exults 
in  there  being,  at  all  events,  "  a  covering  with  water,  which 
is  all  we  want."  This  position  must  take  its  turn,  and  bide 
the  decision  of  a  court  of  last  resort. 

The  challenge  thrown  out  is  this:  "All  cases  of  bathing 
described  by  this  word  {Xuow)  among  Greeks  and  Scythians, 
Egyptians  and  Indians,  were  cases  of  bathing  by  immer- 
sion." 

In  testing  the  defensive  merits  of  this  new  position,  we 
present,  first,  the  following  extract  from  Professor  Wilson, 
occupying  the  Chair  of  Biblical  Literature,  Belfast,  Ireland, 
contained  in  his  work  on  Baptism  (pp.  156-168):  "In  the 
age  of  Homer,  the  vessel  for  bathing  went  by  the  name  of 
aaaiu'^doi;^  and  among  Greeks,  of  a  somewhat  later  age,  it  was 
called  TtosXoq.  Dr.  W.  Smith,  in  his  Dictionary  of  Greek  and 
Roman  Antiquities,  in  the  article  on  Baths,  presents  us  with 
the  following  clear  and  important  statement  respecting  the 
mode  of  using  the  aaaimSix; :  <  It  would  appear,  from  the  de- 
scri[)tion  of  the  bath  administered  to  Ulysses  in  the  palace  of 
Circe,  that  this  vessel  did  not  contain  ivatcr  itself,  but  was  only 
used  for  the  bather  to  sit  in  while  the  warm  7 cater  was  pawned 
over  him,  which  was  heated  in  a  large  caldron  or  tripod, 
under  which  the  fire  was  placed,  and  when  sufficiently 
warmed  was  taken  out  in  other  vessels,  and  poured  over 
the  head  and  shoulders  of  the  person  who  sat  in  the  daaixiviiK.' 
From  this  pregnant  instance  the  advocate  for  dipping  may 
learn  an  instructive  lesson.  It  is  no  proof  of  immersion, 
that  a  party  is  represented  as  goinrj  into  the  bath,  and  coming 
out  of  the  bath. 

"  In  the  case  of  Ulysses,  the  descent  and  the  ascent  are 
both  distinctly  recorded;  while  the  author  expressly  informs 
us,  that  the  ablution  was  performed  by  pouring  or  affusion,  and 
not  by  immersion.  This  testimony  must  tell  on  every  dis- 
cerning mind.  Dr.  Smith  farther  says:  'On  ancient  vases, 
on  which  persons  are  represented  bathing,  ice  never  find  any- 
ihing  -corresponding  to  a  modern  Oath,  in  which  persons  can  stand 
or  sU;  but  there  is  always  a  round  or  oval  basin,  resting  on 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  121 

a  stand,  by  the  side  of  which  those  who  are  bathing  are  rep- 
resented standing  undressed,  and  washing  themselves.' 

"This  was  one  of  the  ordinary  public  baths  of  Greece. 
Where  is  the  '  immersion  ?'  These  basins  were  called  h>uTripz<;^ 
as  also  similar  basins  at  the  porticos  of  Christian  churches, 
in  the  earlier  centuries,  for  washing  the  hands. 

"It  is  not,  then,  a  matter  of  fact,  though  Dr.  Carson  has 
stated  it  in  strong  and  unequivocal  terms,  '  that  immersion 
is  almost  always  the  way  of  bathing.^  It  maj^  be  so  in  our 
own  age  and  country,  and  if  this  furnished  the  standard  of 
comparison,  no  doubt  his  cause  would  be  triumphant.  But, 
in  regard  to  the  baths  of  the  ancient  Greeks,  his  statement 
utterly  fails,  and,  failing  in  that  quarter,  it  is  nothing  to  his 
purpose. 

"  The  common  practice  of  Greece  is  incidentally,  but  very 
strikingly,  referred  to  by  Plutarch,  in  his  Ethical  Treatise 
against  Colotes.  After  stating  that  you  may  see  some  per- 
sons using  the  warm-bath,  others  the  cold,  he  adds:  "Ot  tii<^ 
yap  4'uypov  6(.  ds  6spij.ov  i-i(idXXeiv  xehuouai ;  '  For  some  give  Orders 
to  apply  it  cold,  others  hot.'  The  force  oi  i-iiidXXsiv  strongly 
corroborates  the  views  which  we  advocate,  and  indeed  con- 
stitutes an  independent  attestation.  The  value  of  this  testi- 
mony is  greatly  enhanced  by  its  exact  correspondence  with 
the  representations  on  the  Greek  vases.  The  ordinary  sys- 
tem of  bathing  in  ancient  Greece  knew  no  immersion,  and  em- 
braced no  covering  of  the  body  with  water. 

"Among  the  paintings  in  an  ancient  tomb  at  Thebes  is  one 
containing  a  representation  of  a  lady  enjoying  the  luxury  of 
a  bath,  and  attended  by  four  domestic  servants.  This  pre- 
cious relic  of  former  art  is  thus  described  by  Sir  J.  Gardner 
Wilkinson,  in  his  elaborate  work  on  The  Manners  and  Cus- 
toms of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  iii,  338  :  '  One  attendant  re- 
moves the  jewelry  and  clothes  she  has  taken  off,  or  suspends 
them  to  a  stand  in  the  apartment;  another  pours  too  ter  from 
a  vase  over  her  head,  as  the  third  rubs  her  arms  and  body  with 
her  open  hands;  and  a  fourth,  seated  near  her,  holds  a  sweet- 
scented  flower  to  her  nose,  and  supports  her  as  she  sits  (on 
a  carpet  or  mat).' 


122  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

"  '  The  same  subject,'  "Wilkinson  aflds,  *  is  treated  nearly 
in  the  same  manner,  on  some  of  the  Greek  vases,  the  water 
being  poured  over  the  bather,  who  kneels  or  is  seated  on  the 
ground.'  The  mode  of  bathing  in  Egypt  is  thus  identified 
■with  that  of  ancient  Greece.  This  course  of  research  will 
convince  those  who  prosecute  it,  that  their  understandings 
are  trilled  with,  and  that  speech  is  abused,  when  pouring 
water  on  the  bather,  the  mode  practised  in  the  public  baths  of 
Greece,  is  referred  to  merely  as  a  possible  way  of  bathing." 

How  evidently  and  how  fatallj^  these  facts  penetrate  the 
centre  of  the  "  new  position  "  needs  no  supplementary  words 
to  indicate.  The  evidence,  however,  might  be  much  ex- 
tended, did  it  not  seem  like  inviting  the  remark, — "And 
thrice  he  slew  the  slain."  Still,  one  more  fact,  developing, 
in  the  most  unmistakable  and  instructive  manner,  the  mode 
of  bathing  by  a  people  widely  separated,  geographically, 
from  those  hitherto  spoken  of,  may  be  adduced.  Facts,  like 
diamond  points,  will  make  their  mark  when  all  else  fails. 
Dr.  Carson  refers  to  the  bathing  of  the  East  Indians  as  sup- 
porting an  "immersion"  bath.  The  following  statement  of 
fact  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lbwenthal,  missionary  in  India,  is  con- 
clusive, in  more  than  one  direction,  against  unqualified  as- 
sertions based  on  absolute  assumptions.  This  missionary 
(eminent  for  talent,  learning,  and  devotion,  murdered  at  his 
post)  says, — "The  Ilindoos  use  a  small  urn,  called  lota,  with 
which  they  bathe  at  the  river,  pouring  -water  over  the  bodi/." 
How  often  have  we  been  told^  that  when  a  man  "  goes  to  a 
river,"  to  bathe  or  to  baptize,  idiocy  ou\y  could  deny  that 
he  must  go  for  an  "  immersion."  And  yet  here  is  the  prac- 
tice of  a  people  (appealed  to  for  the  pur})ose  of  snstaining  au 
immersion  bath)  who  do  not  only  bathe  by  "pouring  water 
over  the  body,"  like  Greeks  and  Egyptians,  but  who  "</o  to 
the  river''  for  this  purpose,  taking  up  the  water  by  means  of 
a  "small  urn."  Assertions  and  assumptions  should  have  a 
very  small  place  in  controversial  writings.  Having  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  Sanscrit,  I  rely  upon  others,  when  I  say,  Allava, 
in  that  language,  means  to  bathe,  to  wash.  Lota,  the  vessel 
used  in  bathing,  would  seem  to  stand  in  the  same  relatioa 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  123 

to  allava  as  kouzijp  to  h>6u)^  and  laver  to  lave  (lavo);  and  tliat 
lo(a,  Xourrjp^  and  laver  were  vessels  not  for  bathing  in,  but  for 
holding  the  water  with  which,  when  poured  out  or  drawn 
out,  the  bathing  or  washing  might  be  effected. 

The  Septuiigint  uses  the  term  Xourrjp  for  the  brazen  laver 
placed  in  the  tabernacle  for  ritual  purification.  There  was 
no  immersion  in  this  laver.  It  contained  water  with  which, 
when  drawn  out,  the  hands  and  feet  of  the  priests  were 
washed;  thus  fulfilling  the  same  office  as  the  ^uunjp  of  the 
Grecian  baths,  from  which  water  was  taken  to  be  poured 
over  the  bathers,  as  also  that  of  the  "  lota"  of  the  Hindoos. 
The  Scripture  direction  is, — "Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  wash 
their  hands  and  their  feet,  with  water,  out  of  it" — AVt  v((^'s-ac 

'Aap(bv   xui   ol  vlot   aurou    i.^    aoroo    rdq  ^elpaq,   xai   rtiD?   irodaq   vSari. 

(Exod.  30 :  19.) 

I  add  but  one  more  fact  on  this  subject  of  Indian  bath- 
ing. The  Rev.  Charles  Stewart,  chaplain  U.  S.  N.,  (who  was 
on  board  the  man-of-war  appointed  to  convey  back  to  their 
country  the  Japanese  ambassadors  to  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment,) states,  that  the  mode  of  bathing  by  these  ambas- 
sadors, on  board  the  ship,  was  by  having  water  taken  out  of 
a  small  vessel,  and  sj)irtcd  over  them  by  an  attendant,  while 
they  were  seated  on  the  floor. 

The  fixedness  of  Eastern  customs  carries  these  modes  of 
bathing,  on  the  river-bank  and  in  mid-ocean,  by  "pouring" 
and  by  "  spirting,"  far  back  to  the  ages  of  Grecian  vases, 
and  Egyptian  paintings,  and  Mosaic  institutions. 

If  ever  a  crushing  blow  was  delivered,  such  facts  go  right 
through  the  assertion,  that  hiuw^  luo-pw^  loashwg,  bathing,  re- 
quire the  "immersion  or  the  complete  covering"  of  the 
object. 

Cleansing. — But  we  may  go  farther  and  say,  h>ou}  is  used 
when  water  is  not  employed  at  all,  or  not  employed  to 
effect  any  physical  washing;  the  eflfect  contemplated  being 
one  cleansing  in  its  nature. 

It  is  thus  used  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  ISTew  Testament. 
"When  Isaiah  says,  "Wash  [hjuw)  you,  make  you  clean,  put 
away  the  evil  of  3^our  doings,  cease  to  do  evil,  learn  to  do 


124  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

well,"  he  issues  no  command  for  the  use  of  water,  much  less 
for  its  modal  use  by  "immersion,  complete  covering."  He 
contemplates  a  result  (cleansing),  and  the  mode  for  its  ac- 
complishment he  expressly  states,  "  cease  to  do  evil,  learn 
to  do  well."  If,  after  being  thus  cleansed,  they  should  re- 
turn to  their  evil-doing,  the  prophet  might  well  ask,  in  the 
language  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  "  Of  what  profit  was  your 
cleansing  or  '  washing?'  " 

In  the  New  Testament,  the  redeemed  are  said  to  be 
"washed"  (A«6w)  by  the  blood  of  the  crucified  Saviour. 
The  only  definite  mode  in  which  Christ's  blood  is  repre- 
sented as  applied  to  his  people  is  that  oi  sprinUwg^  the  same 
as  that  in  which  the  typical  ashes  were  applied.  JSTow,  the 
least  particle  of  these  ashes  had  all  the  cleansing  power  be- 
longing to  the  entire  mass.  The  same  is  true  of  the  blood 
of  the  slain  Lamb.  This  great  truth  (antagonistic  to  the 
notion  of  a  greater  good  in  quantity)  is  implied  in  the  mode 
Qf  use  employed — by  "  sprinkling." 

Inasmuch  as  these  sprinklings  were  competent  to  produce 
the  most  absolute  cleansing,  (ceremonial  and  typical  in  the 
one  case,  spiritual  and  real  in  the  other,)  there  is  the  most 
entire  propriety  in  representing  such  sprinklings  as  wasli- 
mg8=thorough  cleansings.  And  if  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  a  "  washing,"  why  not  the  typical 
sprinkling  of  the  ashes,  also,  be  spoken  of  as  a  washing 
{XooTp(ii)'i  Is  it  not  entirely  gratuitous  to  disconnect  this  term 
from  the  purifying  eftect  of  the  ashes,  in  order  to  bring  in  a 
sequent  washing,  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  distinctive 
purification  of  the  rite?  1^  Xourptl)  mat/  be  applied  to  the  ashes 
purification,  we  say  it  must  not  be  ap[)Hed  to  anything  else. 

It  is  in  proof  that  lSa7rTt!:aj  refers  to  the  state  of  purification 
induced  not  by  water,  l)ut  by  ashes;  and  this  being  so,  there 
is  a  logical  necessity  that  h)ur(,a>  should  refer  to  the  same  state 
of  purification. 

Dr.  Carson  endeavors  to  show,  that  "sprinkling"  and 
"washing,"  as  applied  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  denote  two 
modes  of  its  use;  the  one  for  s[»rinkling,  and  the  other  for 
immersion.     But  there  is  no  ground  whatever,  in  Scripture, 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  125 

for  the  idea  that  one  soul  is  "  immersed"  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb,  much  less  the  universal  church  of  all  ages.  There 
are  few,  outside  of  the  theorists,  who  will  not  be  intellectu- 
all}'^  and  morally  shocked  in  attempting  to  give  embodiment 
to  such  a  conception.  If  it  were  necessary,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, to  go  to  the  literal  application  of  the  word.  Dr. 
C.  and  his  friends  ought  to  know,  right  well,  that  the  wash- 
ing with  water  of  a  very  limited  part  of  the  body  was  suifi- 
cient  to  purify  the  whole;  and  that  touching  with  blood  the 
tip  of  the  ear,  the  thumb,  and  the  toe,  had  efficacious  cleans- 
ing power  extending  to  the  whole  body,  without  "  immer- 
sion" in  blood.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  back  to  the 
primary  use  of  the  word. 

In  such  cases,  the  idea  of  cleansing  is  directly  conveyed, 
without  regard  to  the  extent  or  the  manner  of  application. 
The  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  depends  on  neither  quan- 
tity nor  mode.  And  when  the  terms  sprinkle  and  wash  are 
applied  to  it,  distinction  of  mode  is  not  to  be  pressed,  but  that 
in  which  they  agree,  namely, — power  to  cleanse.  "  Washed 
by  his  blood," — "  blood  of  sprinkling,"  call  our  attention  not 
to  modes  of  operation,  but  to  efficacious  influence. 

That  h'orpiu  may  be  used,  in  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion, as  expressive  of  the  result  reached  by  sprinJdlng^  is  made 
certain  by  its  use,  with  the  purification  of  Ariantheus,  by 
sprinkling,  on  his  dying-bed,  who,  thus,  was  baptized  "with 
the  bath,  washing,  clea?ising — XooTpiL — of  regeneration."  [Basil, 
iv,  1001.)  This  death-bed  sprinkling,  Basil  being  witness, 
efifected  a  "  washing."  The  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ 
efi:ects  a  washing.  The  sprinkling  of  heifer  ashes  effected 
a  washing  in  precisely  the  same  general  sense, — a  cleansing 
from  imparitg.  Now,  shall  we  adopt  this  well-established  in- 
terpretation, meeting  all  the  features  of  the  case,  or  shall  we 
leave  out  the  sprinkling  and  the  ashes,  (the  alpha  and  the 
omega  of  the  rite,)  and  introduce  "  immersion"  and  "bath- 
ing," (not  a  syllable  for  which  can  be  found  in  the  law,)  on 
the  ground  that  "  superstition"  may  have  introduced  tlieni 
(Carson)?  Ambrose  (ii,  1583)  speaks  of  a  washing,  cleans- 
ing, ablution  without  water,  indeed  of  water  itsell", — '■'■ablulee 


126  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

j)er  carncm  ChristV^  If  the  "  flesli "  of  Christ  can  wash,  ashes, 
representing  the  blood  of  Christ,  can  "  wash."  And  this 
"washing"  is  a  cleansing  from  which  water  has  disappeared, 
not  only  as  to  "  covering,"  but  in  every  other  form. 

Syntax. — The  syntax  of  this  passage  is  unusual  and  claims 
attention.  Any  essential  change  of  syntax  in  the  structure 
of  a  sentence  is  admitted  to  be  evidence  of  some  change  of 
thought  ai:d  of  the  meaning  of  words. 

President  Halley,  of  England,  adduces  the  phrase  ^t  rr^v 
■nopfvpav  jidTZTovTsq — "  tliosc  dyeing  the  purple" — as  conclusive 
evidence  of  a  change  of  meaning  in  ,5a;rrw.  "  The  syntax  is 
so  varied  as  to  make  not  the  thing  colored,  but  the  color 
itself,  the  object  of  the  verb;  the  secondary  sense  has  re- 
nounced all  dependence  on  the  primary,  and  established 
itself  by  a  new  law  of  syntax,  enacted  by  usage  to  secure  its 
undisturbed  possession." 

Professor  Wilson,  of  Belfast,  after  examining  and  reject- 
ing the  explanations  of  Gale  and  Carson  on  Daniel  4 :  30, 
and  T7j';  Spuaau — c/?«f52,  "  wet  from  the  dew,"  based  on  the 
primary  meaning — dip,  says :  "  The  construction  with  <i-o  is 
inexplicable  on  the  principle  of  a  literal,  primary  interpre- 
tation. But  if  the  verb,  divorced  from  mode,  takes  the 
meaning  to  wet,  then  a  literal  exegesis  is  both  practicable 
and  natural." 

Professor  Stuart,  of  our  country,  quotes  a  similarly  con- 
structed passage  from  Leviticus  4  :  17,  z"';  ySaV'^s  6  hfitv^  rw 
dd/.Tok()v  d-o  Tw  aliM-o^ — "And  the  priest  shall  moisten  or  smear 
over  his  finger  from  the  blood,"  as  indicating,  by  its  change 
of  syntax,  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  verb. 

Precisely  the  same  syntactical  form,  as  in  the  last  two  pas- 
sages, occurs  in  the  passage  under  consideration — ^anrtXotxtvoi; 
a-o  vexpou^  "  being  baptized  from  the  dead;"  there  can  be  no 
translation  of  tliis  passage,  as  it  stands,  on  the  basis  of  a  dip- 
J^ii^g,  tvii  immersing,  or  a  covering  over ;  but  if  we  adopt  that 
meaning  which  has  been  shown  to  be  the  legitimate  pro<luc- 
tion  of  the  laws  of  language — to  make  pure — the  translation 
is  direct  and  facile,  ^^  being  ptirijied  from  a  dead  body."  And 
just  as  "  dye"  and  "  wet"  are  the  natural  advance  meanings 


BAPTISM  FROM  THE  DEAD.  127 

of  dip^  SO  "to  purify"  is  the  natural  advance  meaning  of 
iSa-rC^co  in  religions  rites. 

Thus  the  result  of  language-development  is  sustained  by 
modified  form  in  the  relation  of  words  to  meet  modified 
meaning  of  words. 

When  we  come  to  usage  like  this,  we  feel  the  necessity, 
in  writings  intended  for  general  circulation,  to  introduce  a 
second  word  in  translation. 

The  Greeks  employed  i3d-Tu>  to  denote  a  dipping,  and  also 
the  far-ofi'  idea  of  a  bloodied  face.  They  reached  this  second 
meaning  legitimately,  but  our  language  has  not  travelled  in 
that  direction,  certainly  not  to  that  point,  and  probably  never 
will;  if,  therefore,  we  wish  to  translate  from  the  Greek  an}'- 
thing  respecting  "  a  bloodied  face,"  (or  "  bloodied  finger,") 
we  will  use  some  other  word  than  dip. 

The  Greeks  also  used  /SaTrntw  to  express  to  merse,  and  also 
the  far-removed  idea  to  make  drunk,  reached,  however,  by 
methods  most  legitimate  ;  but  we  have  no  such  usage,  and 
therefore,  to  be  intelligible,  must  use  a  second  word.  The 
Jews  used  /?arritw,  like  the  Greeks,  in  the  sense  to  merse,  and 
(by  a  development  which  the  Greeks  had  not  followed  out, 
but  on  the  same  principles  which  they  had  followed  to  other 
issues)  they  used  it  to  express  the  idea  to  make  ceremonially 
jmre.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  Jewish  or  any  other 
ceremonial  purity,  and  have  no  such  meaning  attached  or 
readily  attachable  to  the  word,  and,  consequentl}-,  are  under 
obligation  to  use  another  word,  or  introduce  some  caveat 
against  misconception.  The  Jew  would  have  been  no  less 
embarrassed,  in  speaking  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  and  of 
Nelson's  Jtag-ship,  by  the  same  designation — dur/p  T.iihiuffrii^. 
Having  such  phrase  rigidly  fixed  to  express  the  warlike  char- 
acter of  a  David  or  a  Goliah,  and  having  no  counterpart  to 
the  "Victory"  and  her  thundering  cannon,  (any  more  than 
we  have  to  Jewish  defilements  and  ritual  purifications,)  they 
would  not  be  likely  to  engraft  upon  their  language  by  a  lite- 
ral translation,  "man-of-war"  for  a  fighting-ship,  but  would 
give  it  expression  by  some  word  or  phrase  in  harmony  with 
their  own  use  of  lauiruaire. 


128  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

In  Classic  Baptism,  having  represented  the  one  Greek 
word  fiaKri^ui  by  the  one  word  merse,  (indicating,  in  other 
ways  than  by  the  translation,  the  differences  of  meaning, 
and  pointing  out  their  legitimate  outgrowth  from  the  radi- 
cal idea,)  I  will  no  longer  do  violence  to  our  very  different 
language  position  by  retaining  always  the  same  verbal  form. 

Feeling  justified  in  believing  that  proof  has  been  adduced 
that  the  Classic  Baptism,  par  eminence,  was  a  state  of  intoxi- 
cation, and  that,  by  like  eminence,  a  state  of  ceremonial  purifi- 
cation was  Judaic  Baptism,  I  shall  feel  at  perfect  liberty  to 
translate  and  to  speak  accordingly. 

Much  attention  has  been  given  to  this  passage  because  of 
its  importance,  both  direct  and  indirect.  When  it  shall  have 
been  closely  compared  with  the  ritual  law;  with  Josephus, 
Philo,  and  Cyril ;  with  the  usage  of  ^-oucu  m  the  Septuagint  and 
New  Testament;  with  the  classical  development  of  i^a-rjtw; 
and  when  the  absolute  use  of  ISaTzn^ofievoq^  and  its  peculiar 
syntax  shall  have  been  duly  considered;  I  think  that  there 
will  be  few  who  will  not  admit  it  as  proving,  that  the  sprink- 
ling of  heifer  ashes  reveals  the  agency  and  the  mode  by  which 
this  baptism  was  effected,  and  that  the  resultant  condition — 
ceremonial  jmrijication,  ims  Judaic  Baptism. 

Abundant  evidence  confirmatory  of  this  conclusion  will 
be,  hereafter,  met  with. 


OLD    TESTAMENT     BAPTISMS. 


(129) 


PATRISTIC  INTEEPRETATION 

OF 

PASSAGES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT, 

EXPOUNDED   AS 

JUDAIC  BAPTISMS  AND  FIGURES  OF  CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM, 

SHOWING  THEIR  CONCEPTION  OF 

B  A  n  T I  z  n. 


The  passages  taken  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
now  about  to  be  examined,  do  not,  of  course,  exhibit  the 
Greek  word  in  the  original  (Hebrew)  text;  nor  is  this  word 
often  found  in  the  Greek  (Septuagint)  translation.  This, 
however,  far  from  being  a  disadvantage,  is  a  manifest  ad- 
vantage. The  use  of  a  word  belonging  to  one  language  as 
the  equivalent  of  a  word  in  another  language,  or  as  exposi- 
tory of  an  idea  resultant  from  many  words,  or  as  declarative 
of  an  effect  accomplished  by  an  act  or  combination  of  acts 
and  influences,  all  sharply  defined  and  well  understood, 
leaves  but  little  material  to  be  desired  for  a  proper  under- 
standing of  such  word. 

The  propriety  and  the  value  of  such  usage  find  their  vindi- 
cation in  the  employment  by  the  inspired  Apostle  of  l^aTZTtXat 
to  describe  the  relation  established  between  the  Israelites  and 
Moses  by  the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Red  Sea.  In  the 
Hebrew  text  there  is  no  verbal  form  which  is  represented  by 
the  Greek — ek  t6v  MwatiV  iiSaitriaavzo -,  it  is  no  translation,  but 
an  independent,  authoritative  statement  or  interpretation, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  found  in  the  narrative  by  Moses. 

(131) 


132  JUDAIC   BAPTISxM. 

But  whether  in  the  verbal  record  as  originally  made  through 
the  Holy  Ghost,  or  not,  it  was  in  the  transaction.  The  his- 
torical narrative  of  occurring  events  may  be  varied,  but  the 
events  themselves  cannot  be  changed.  Paul's  statement,  if 
not  found  among  the  words  of  Moses,  will  be  found  among 
the  facts  of  the  transaction  or  their  outwrought  results. 
The  record  by  Moses  and  by  Paul  has  equally  the  stamp  of 
divine  authority.  Justly  expounded,  the  different  forms  of 
phraseology  will  give  welcome  and  valuable  aid  in  reaching 
the  meaning  of  words,  and  a  fuller  understanding  of  the 
transaction.  \Yhen  Patristic  writers,  not  professing  to  trans- 
late the  Hebrew  text,  but  to  expound  the  nature  of  minutely 
described  rites,  or  the  results  of  historically  detailed  transac- 
tions, pronounce  them  baptisms,  their  statement  has  no  divine 
authority,  as  has  Paul's,  but  it  has  the  highest  human  au- 
thority. 

These  writers  had,  unquestionably,  a  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  Greek  word,  as  classically  used,  as  also  of  its  capabili- 
ties for  development,  and  the  laws  of  the  Greek  language, 
under  which  such  development  should  be  made.  Their  au- 
thority for  the  use  of  a  Greek  word  is  as  unimpeachable  as 
is  that  of  Homer  or  of  Xenophon,  so  far  as  meaning  and 
fitness  of  application  are  concerned. 

The  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  reference  to  bap- 
tism by  Patrists,  must  be  made  from  their  own  standpoint, 
as  to  the  nature  of  Christian  and  Judaic  Baptism;  and,  in 
interpreting  their  interpretation,  we  must  occupy  the  same 
position.  They  may  err  in  their  understanding  of  the  nature 
of  these  baptisms,  but  they  cannot  err  in  their  understanding 
of  the  nature,  abstractly,  of  a  baptism. 

"When  they  say  that  the  nature  or  value,  intrinsic  or  rela- 
tive, of  Judaic  Baptism,  of  John's  Baptism,  of  Christian 
Baptism,  was  this  or  that,  they  may  be  right  or  wrong,  and 
are  subject  to  peremptor}-  challenge;  but  when  tliey  say  that 
a  certain  rite,  by  means  of  a  drop  of  water  falling  from  the 
finger's  tip,  eftects  a  baptism;  or,  that  the  act  by  which  the 
hand  of  the  priest  is  laid  upon  the  head,  eftects  a  baptism; 
or,  that  influence,  proceeding  from  any  source,  without  con- 


FIGURES   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  133 

tact,  effects  a  baptism,  they  are  beyond  impeacliment  from 
us.  They  are  arbiters,  without  appeal,  as  to  the  capability 
of  the  word  for  such  usage.  Such  use,  is,  in  itself,  a  final 
decree  in  the  case. 

Again,  when  these  writers  declare  of  certain  transactions, 
that  they  are  "figures"  of  baptism,  we  are  at  liberty  to  ques- 
tion whether  there  was  any  such  "  figure  "  designed  by  the 
inspired  writer;  or  we  may  question  the  soundness  of  judg- 
ment which  finds  such  figure;  or  we  may  challenge  on  the 
ground  of  the  abstract  merits  of  the  case;  but  it  is  beyond 
our  province  to  raise  a  question  as  to  the  existence  of  resem- 
blance to  baptism,  as  it  has  become  concrete  in  the  minds  of 
these  writers.  Whenever  they  put  their  finger  upon  a  fact, 
or  indicate  a  conception,  and  say  "that  resembles  baptism," 
we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  accept  such  fact  or  conception 
as  an  image  in  the  glass  shadowing  forth  the  reality  in  their 
minds.  The  great  value  of  these  "figures  "  and  "images" 
is  that  they  are  fixed  quantities,  not  like  the  ever-varying 
"figures" — trope,  and  metaphor,  and  hyperbole,  and  cata- 
chresis,  and  metonomy,  and  synecdoche — which  wait,  as  an 
ever-ready  band  of  servitors,  upon  the  theory;  nor  like  the 
pictures  of  "pools,  and  floods,  and  torrents,"  into  which  debt- 
ors and  tax-payers  are  dipped,  or  by  which  ships  and  cities 
are  whelmed.  Such  things  may  give  exercise  to  the  imagi- 
nation, but  will  furnish  very  little  satisfaction  to  thoughtful 
men,  as  introduced  into  this  subject  by  Baptist  writers. 

If,  in  the  examination  of  the  many  and  varied  appeals  to 
"figure,"  by  Patristic  writers,  we  do  not  find  one  instance 
of  "  a  dipping,"  one  instance  of  "a  torrent,"  one  instance  of 
"  a  covering  over,"  as  exhibiting  a  resemblance  to  baptism, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  find  constant  reference  to  resemblances 
in  things  which  are  as  far  removed  from  dippings^  ichelmingSy 
coverings,  as  is  the  east  removed  from  the  west,  what  must 
we  conclude  to  be  the  Patristic  estimation  of  the  theory 
which  makes  baptism  "a  dipping,  and  nothing  but  a  dip- 
ping, through  all  Greek  literature?" 

If  there  were  no  other  ruinous  evidence  against  the  dip- 
ping ■'Jieory  than  that  furnished  by  these  Old  Testament 


134  JUDAIC  BAPTISM. 

baptisms  and  figures  of  baptism,  brought  to  view  by  Patris- 
tic writers,  this  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  insure  its  death 
and  burial,  without  hope  of  resurrection. 
Let  us  now  look  at  some  of  them. 


BAPTISM  OP  THE  WATEES  BY  QUALITY  IMPARTED. 

Genesis  1 :  2. 

"  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters." 

BaiAism  of  the  Waters  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

"Sed  ea  satis  prseeerpsisse,  in  qiiibus  et  ratio  Baptism!  recog- 
noscitur  prima  ilia,  qua  jam  tunc  etiam  ipso  babitu  prjenotabatur 
ad  Baptismi  figuram,  Dei  Spiritum,  qui  ab  initio  supervectabatur 
super  aquas,  intinctos  reformaturum.  Sanctum  autem  utique 
super  sanctum  ferebatur;  aut  ab  eo  quod  superfercbatur,  id  quod 
ferebat,  saneitatem  mutuabatur.  Quoniam  subjccta  quaeque  ma- 
teria, ejus  quae  desuper  imminet,  qualitatem  rapiat  necesse  est, 
maxime  corporalis  spiritalem,  et  penetrare  et  insidere  facileni 
per  substantia)  sua)  subtilitatem.  Ita  de  sancto  sanctificatae  na- 
tura  aquarum,  et  ipsse  sanctificare  concepit." 

'•But  it  is  sufficient  to  have  premised  these  things,  whereby 
also  may  be  recognized  that  prime  nature  of  baptism,  by  which, 
even  then,  by  its  very  dress,  was  foreshown  by  a  figure  of  bap- 
tism, that  tlie  Spirit  of  God,  which  from  the  beginning  was 
upborne  above  the  waters,  would  transform  the  imbued.  But, 
indeed,  the  holy  was  borne  above  the  hoh%  or  that  which  bore 
received  sanctity  from  that  upborne.  Since  whatever  substance 
is  beneath,  receives,  of  necessity,  character  from  that  which  rests 
above,  especially  is  a  physical  substance  pervaded  by  a  spiritual, 
through  the  subtlety  of  its  nature.  So  the  nature  of  the  waters 
was  sanctified  by  the  Holy,  and  itself  received  the  power  to 
sanctify." — TertulUan,  i,  1203. 

Didymus  Alcxandrinus  (G92),  speaks  of  this  passage  in  terms 
so  closely  resembling  those  of  Tertullian,  that  they  almost  ap- 
pear to  be  a  translation. 

'//  ddia{p£TO(;  xai  upp-qroi;  Tf/tdq,  Tzpodpcbrra  i^  aiwvix;  zoo  d'^OfxijTzivou  jSiou 
TOL  6?.i(T0rjfjd^  urxuTuj   r^aimyaytlv   ix  [xrj  v>tujv  tjjv   uy/juv  uuaiav^  T/UT(ji::cffSV 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   WATERS   BY   THE   SPIRIT   OF   GOD.       135 

OL'^Opwizoiq  TT^v  iv  roTq  uSafftv  fafftv.  Tucydprot  z^  iauTou  iTZicpopa  to  ayiov 
Uvsupia  ix  Tore  dytaffav  aura,  xai  ^(uoyovov  dzoreXiffav  ^atvsrac.  Tlavzl 
•fip  TcpodrjXov  OTzdp^et,  ujt;  xat  rd  unspxeifisvov  ru*  OTzspxet/j-ivo)  rr^q  olxstaq 
fieTaSiSufffiv,  iv  ourwq  efrw,  Trojo-njro?,  xai  Tzaaa  VTzoxeqii'^rj  oXtj,  rrjq  too 
ki:ixeiiiivou  fiXel  Tzwq  dpnd^etv  IdiozTjToq.  "OOsv  ddtaxpircnq  jravn  udarc, 
.  .  .  ^dTzriffpa  yivsrat.  ("  Baptism  is  effected  by  every  water  indis- 
criminately.") 

EXPOSITION. 

This  is  not  a  case  of  Judaic  Baptism;  but  a  "figure"  of 
Patristic  Baptism  as  couceived  of,  taught,  and  practised,  by 
Tertullian  and  others. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and,  almost,  in  its  first  verse,  there  should 
be  found  a  "figure  of  baptism,"  susceptible,  under  any  ap- 
pliances of  imagination,  of  developing  nearly  all  the  salient 
points  of  baptism  as  it  lay  in  the  Patrist  mind.  "Whether 
their  views  were  right  or  wrong  is  not,  now,  any  inquiry  of 
ours.  We  have  to  do  with  philology,  not  with  theology.  A 
heathen  Greek  or  a  Patristic  errorist  can,  here,  give  sound 
instruction  as  to  the  usage  of  words. 

It  would  not  be  proper  to  consider  in  detail,  the  peculiar- 
ities of  Patristic  baptism;  but  they  form  so  completely  the 
web  and  woof  of  their  interpretations  of  these  Old  Testa- 
ment baptisms,  that  it  becomes  essential  to  give  them  some 
attention.  The  present  is  a  favorable  opportunity  to  do  so, 
as  they  cluster  around  the  exposition  of  this  passage  in  an 
unusual  degree. 

^^  Fif/ure  of  Baptism." — In  this  figure  of  baptism  presented 
before  us  by  Tertullian  there  are  but  two  elements, — the 
Holy  Spirit  and  water.  Our  business  is  to  discover  the  justi- 
fying ground  for  affirming  that  these  elements,  in  them- 
selves, or  in  their  relations  to  each  other,  or  by  their  in- 
fluence over  each  other,  exhibit  "the  figure,"  form,  or  char- 
acter of  a  baptism.  A  "  figure  "  must  contain  a  resemblance 
to  the  reality  figured.  Baptists  have  maintained,  with  the 
most  cast  iron  rigidity,  that  baptism  consists  of  "mode,  and 
nothing  but  mode,"  and  that  a  discussion  of  the  mode  of 
baptism  is  as  great  a  blunder  as  to  discuss  the  mode  of  dip- 


136  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

ping,  whose  form  is  a  fixed  unity.  Try  this  theory  by  "  the 
figure  of  baptism"  before  us.  Is  there  anything  in  it  which 
resembles  a  dipping?  I  need  hardly  say  that  there  is  no 
such  thing. 

"We  have,  then,  a  figure  of  baptism,  with  the  baptism  part 
left  out. 

But  the  more  sober-minded  Baptists  are  beginning  to 
shrink  from  this  position,  to  which  they  so  long  demanded 
the  obedience  of  the  Christian  world  under  penalty  of  dis- 
loyalty to  God,  and  are  substituting  liberty  in  the  act,  yet 
requiring  completeness  in  the  covering.  Is  there  any  com- 
pleteness of  covering  in  this  "figure?"  There  is  none 
whatever.  Again,  then,  we  have  a  house  built  with  the 
foundation  forgotten.  The  Baptist  theory,  whether  repre- 
sented in  its  rigidity  by  Carson,  or  in  its  laxity  by  Couant, 
utterly  fails  to  expound  this  "figure  of  baptism." 

Submit,  now,  to  the  same  test  the  conclusion  to  which  we 
have  been  brought  by  an  examination  of  the  usage  of  classic 
writers, — a  conclusion  which  denies  that  the  essence  of /5a-7cTw 
is  to  be  found  in  action,  definite  or  indefinite ;  and  afl&rms  that 
it  is  to  be  found  in  change  oi  condition:  1.  To  place  an  object 
in  a  condition  of  physical  intusposition  subject  to  all  the 
controlling  influences  of  such  condition.  2.  To  change  con- 
trollingly  and  after  its  own  nature  the  condition  of  an  object, 
without  intusposition,  by  any  influence  competent  to  efiect 
such  change. 

Does  this  definition  find  its  shadow  in  "  the  figure  of  bap- 
tism" before  us?  So  complete  is  the  resemblance  that  we 
are  tempted  to  believe  that  the  one  was  directly  sketched 
from  the  other.  This  is  not  so;  they  were  not  taken,  the 
one  from  the  other,  but  both  were  taken  from  one  original, — 
the  Classic  writers.  Hence  the  perfect  resemblance  between 
"  the  figure"  of  Tertullian  and  "the  conclusion"  of  Classic 
Baptism.  We  originate  no  novelty  in  the  ecclesiastical 
usage  of  this  word.  We  rest  squarely  on  the  Classic  founda- 
tion. The  onl}'  novelty  is  in  the  application  of  the  word  to 
a  class  of  things  with  which  heathen  writers  had  no  ac- 
quaintance;  thus  increasing  its  domain  without  changing 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   WATERS   BY   THE    SPIRIT    OF   GOD.       137 

its  principle.  The  "figure"  resemblance,  in  this  case,  con- 
sists in  the  change  of  condition  in  the  waters,  by  the  new 
"quality"  imparted  to  them  through  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  was  itself  a  baptism,  yet,  only,  a  figure 
of  the  baptism.  The  lamb  slain  on  Abel's  altar  was  a  sac- 
rifice, yet,  only  a  figure  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God 
slain  on  Calvary. 

The  Agent.  —  The  agent  in  this  baptism  was  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  quo  modo  of  any  baptism  is  never  governed  by 
the  word.  The  mode,  by  which  the  baptism  was  effected  in 
this  case,  Tertullian  is  very  particular  in  stating  was  neither 
by  "dipping,"  nor  by  any  act  "effecting  a  complete  cover- 
ing;" but  by  "moving  above"  and  "resting  upon."  He 
lays  it  down  as  a  received  axiom  that  "  the  decumbent 
must  receive  the  quality  of  the  superincumbent."  Thus 
the  waters  were  penetrated  and  pervaded  by  a  holy  quality 
received  from  the  incumbent  Holy  Spirit;  and,  still  more, 
were  endued  with  the  power  to  communicate  such  quality; 
in  other  words  became  capable  of  baptizing — changing  con- 
dition by  imparting  the  quality  of  sanctity.  Without  bear- 
ing in  mind  this  new  power  claimed  to  be  conferred  on  the 
waters.  Patristic  baptism  can  never  beamderstood. 

The  Object. — The  object  in  this  baptism  was  "the  waters." 
Dr.  Carson  insists  that  a  dipping  must  be  impossible  before 
a  secondary  meaning  can  have  any  hearing.  Will  those  who 
have  fallen  heirs  to  his  sentiments,  tell  us  where  the  possi- 
bility of  a  dipping  is  to  be  found  here?  Gale  could  hyper- 
bolize the  waters  of  a  lake  into  the  scanty  pool  of  a  frog's 
blood;  but  where  is  the  hyperbole  to  come  from,  or  where 
is  the  tiny  pool  to  be  found,  when  the  object  for  dipping  is 
"  the  waters"  swathing  the  globe,  before  "the  dry  land  was 
made  to  appear?" 

But  while  "the  waters"  are  the  object  of  baptism  in  this 
case,  they  stand  in  another  relation,  entirely,  in  the  baptism. 
They  there  become  the  agcjit  in  baptism,  and  execute  the 
function  for  which  they  are  now  qualified — "  sanctified  and 
loith  ijower  to  sanctify.^'  That  water  is  an  agency  in  baptism, 
exercising  a  positive  power,  controlling  the  moral  condition 


138  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

of  those  subject  to  its  influence,  is  another  Patristic  idea, 
without  whose  aid  their  baptism  cannot  be  rightly  inter- 
preted. 

Iniincios. — The  friends  of  the  theory  may  here  smile  and 
say,  "  At  last  we  have  a  dip."  We  could  almost  wish  that 
it  were  so,  they  have  been  so  often  and  so  sorely  disap- 
pointed ;  but  it  is  not  a  very  hopeful  case.  Let  us  suppose, 
however,  that  Tertullian  does,  here,  speak  of  "the  dipped," 
what  is  the  precise  value  of  the  statement?  Is  it  replied: 
"It  teaches  that  when  men  were  baptized  they  were  '  dipped,' 
and  therefore  to  baptize  is  to  dip?"  Festina  lente;  do  not 
draw  conclusions  too  fast.  Cloth  is  dyed  by  dipping,  there- 
fore to  dye  means  to  dip !  Is  that  the  logic  ?  Has  it  not  been 
settled,  even  to  Dr.  Carson's  satisfaction,  that  dyeing  is  not 
dipping,  and  dipping  is  not  dyeing?  And  has  it  not  been  set- 
tled, on  3'et  stronger  evidence,  that  "  baptizing  is  not  dipping, 
and  dipping  is  not  baptizing?"  Whatever  place,  then,  dip- 
ping might  have  in  a  baptism,  it  cannot  represent  /Sa—ttw. 
This  inquiry,  then,  is  not  affected  if  "intinctos"  should  be 
written  down  "  dipped."  But  before  that  is  done,  let  us  re- 
flect on  some  things  which  otherwise  might  require  it  to  be 
undone.  J)  oe&  not  tin  go  mean  lo  dye?  "Certainly."  And 
does  not  tingo,  also,  cease  to  express  color  and  declare  a 
quality  (as  of  honesty,  justice,)  without  color?  "But,  what 
has  that  to  do  with  '  intinctos '  applied  to  water  ?  "  Just  this : 
the  water  of  Patristic  baptism  is  '■'■sanctified''^  water,  and  is 
capable  of  "sanctifying"  that  which  is  dipped  into  it,  or 
that  which  is  sprinkled  by  it;  therefore  the  sanctified  or  bap- 
tized condition  induced  by  this  water-agency  is  no  more  the 
dipping  which  puts  the  object  into  it,  than  is  the  dyed  con- 
dition of  the  cloth  the  dipping  which  put  it  into  the  coloring- 
tub. 

That  Tertullian  had  no  idea  of  limiting  this  word  to  the 
action  of  dipping,  is  manifest  by  its  adjunct,  "intinctos  re- 
formaturum."  Were  "  the  dipped  "  to  be  "  made  over  again," 
by  the  act  of  dipping  into  simple  water?  Did  Tertullian  be- 
lieve any  such  thing?  Did  any  Patristic  writer  believe  any 
such  thing?    Did  not  he,  and  others,  believe  that  men  dip* 


BAPTISM    OF   THE    WATERS   BY   THE   SPIRIT    OF   GOD.       139 

ped  into  water,  "penetrated  and  pervaded  witli  a  quality 
communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  were,  by  this  "quality," 
"reformed,"  regenerated,  intineied  with  a  divine  influence? 
And  did  they  not  believe  that  this  "quality"  was  able  (Dr. 
Carson  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding)  to  baptize,  to  iniinct, 
to  regenerate,  to  purify  from  sin,  to  save,  to  change  the  con- 
dition of  the  sold,  by  sprinkling  as  well  as  by  dipping?  ITo 
man,  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  testimony  on 
these  points,  will  think  of  denying  this.  An  intelligent  ap- 
prehension of  all  the  features  of  the  case,  will  place  a  very 
imperative  veto  on  the  confounding  of  the  "intinctos"  with 
the  merely  dipped,  or  a  dipping  with  a  baptism. 

I  should  have  preferred  saying  nothing,  at  present,  on  these 
features  of  Patristic  baptism,  had  not  the  case,  as  presented, 
seemed  to  make  it  imperative.  I  only  add  a  testimony  or 
two  from  the  Classics,  to  show  that  water  may  be  "  intincted," 
have  quality  without  color  imparted  to  it:  Et  incerto  font- 
em  medicamine  iinxit. — Metamorph.,  iv,  388.  "  Tincted  or 
infected  the  fountain  with  a  doubtful  drug." 

An  quia  cunctariim  oontraria  semina  rerum 
•  Sunt  duo,  discordes  ignis  et  unda  Dei, 
Junxerunt  clcraenta  patres :  aptunique  putarunt 
Ignibus  et  spursa  tingere  corpus  aqua? 

Fasiorian,  iv,  787-790. 

Here  is  the  body  tincted  without  being  colored,  by  ^^  sprinkled 
ivater,"  used  in  religious  rites.  It  is  perilous  for  controver- 
sialists to  stake  their  all  on  naked  words.  Verbal  alliances 
constitute  a  new  power  which  will  make  itself  to  be  felt. 
Chemical  elements,  in  combination,  lose  their  isolated  char- 
acter. Individuals,  in  social  organization,  give  up  old  rights 
and  secure  new  ones.  Words,  in  organic  phrases,  modify 
their  individuality,  by  giving  to  and  receiving  from  associ- 
ate words.  Tingo  cannot' put  on  an  abstract  unchangeability, 
but  must  submit  to  universal  law,  and  take  character  from 
the  company  it  keeps. 

The  views  of  Tertullian  on  this  passage  are  not  peculiar, 
but  fairly  represent  the  views  of  his  times.  This  will  sufii'- 
cieutly  appear  from  one  or  two  quotations^ 


140  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Jerome  ii,  161.  "  Quomodo  antiquis  sordibus  anima  purga- 
tur,  qure  sanctum  iioii  habet  Spiritum?  Neque  enim  aqua 
lavat  animam,  sed  prius  lavatur  a  Spiritu,  ut  alios  lavare 
spiritualiter  possit.  Spiritus,  inquit  Moyses,  Domuil  ferebatar 
super  aquas.  (Gen.  1,  2.)  Exquoapparet  baptisnia  non  esse 
sine  Spiritu  sancto.  Betbcsda  lacus  Judooce,  nisi  per  adven- 
tum  Angeli,  debilitata  corporaliter  membra  sanare  non  po- 
terat :  et  tu  mibi  aqua  simplici,  quasi  de  bahieo  unimam  lotam 
producis?" 

This  passage  brings  into  bold  relief  the  following  points: 

1.  Simple  water,  however  used,  by  dipping,  covering, 
sprinkling,  pouring,  or  witli  whatsoever  formularies,  how- 
ever orthodox,  associated,  cannot  effect  Jerome's  baptism. 

2.  In  Jerome's  baptism  the  soul  is  "  washed,"=cleaused, 
(antiquis  sordibus  purgatur,)  changed  in  conditloii. 

3.  To  eiiect  this  change  of  condition  in  the  soul,  the  water 
itself  must  first  be  changed  b}'  a  new  quality  imparted  to  it 
by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

4.  In  proof  that  such  change  in  the  water  is  eftected,  he 
quotes  Genesis  1:2:  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  was  borne  above 
the  waters.'' 

As  the  Classics  teach  us  that  there  are  two  baptisms  of 
wine,  most  absolutel}-  distinct  in  nature,  the  one  resulting 
from  its  mersing  quality,  the  other  from  its  intoxicating 
quality;  so  Jerome  teaches  that  there  are  two  baptisms  of 
water,  as  absolutely  distinct  in  nature;  the  one  due  to  its 
mersing  quality,  the  other  due  to  its  soul-sanctifying  quality, 
imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first  of  these  wine  bap- 
tisms is  exemplified  by  Richard  drowning  Clarence ;  the 
second  by  The])e  intoxicating  Alexander.  The  first  of  these 
wate4'  baptisms  is  that  of  Arian,  who  uses  simple  water  be- 
cause "he  has  not  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  second  is  that  of 
Jerome,  who  employs  water  having  a  sanctifying  (pudity 
able  "to  change  the  condition  of  the  soul." 

The  limitiition  of  baptism  to  a  dipping  or  a  covering,  is  a 
thought  nowhere  to  be  found  among  Classics  or  Patrists. 
To  bring  such  a  conception  to  expound  the  subject  of  bap- 
tisms, is  like  using  a  dark  lantern  to  illumine  the  realms  of 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   WATERS    BY   THE   SPIRIT   OF    GOD.        141 

Erebns.  The  mode  of  baptism  employed  by  Ariuii  and  by 
Jerome,  may  have  been  the  same.  Both  may  have  dipped 
their  disciples;  but  those  of  Arian  came  out  of  their  dipping 
unbaptized,  and  those  of  Jerome  came  out  of  their  dipping 
baptized,  for  precisely  the  same  reason  that  cloth  dipped 
into  mere  water  comes  forth  uncolored,  and  dipped  into  dye- 
water,  comes  forth  colored.  Jerome  knew  nothing  of  the 
theory  that  "baptizing  is  dipping,  and  dipping  is  baptizing." 

A  passage  of  like  import  may  be  found  in  Ambrose,  ii,  1583: 
^^  B(q)tizatus  est  ergo  Domiuus  non  mundari  volens,  sed  muu- 
dare  aquas;  ut  ablutse  per  carnem  Christi,  qu^  peccatum  nou 
cognovit,  baptismatis  jus  haberent." 

Here  we  have  inculcated :  1.  That  a  divine  influence  was 
exerted  over  the  waters.  2.  That,  by  virtue  of  this  divine 
influence,  the  waters  were  invested  with  the  power  of  baptism. 

If,  now,  it  be  a  token  of  lunacy  to  deny  that  water  has,  of 
essence,  and  not  by  accident,  "the  power"  to  receive  any 
object  dipped  into  it;  and  if  Ambrose  denies  that  water  has, 
by  its  essential  nature,  the  "jus  baptismatis,"  and  on]y  pos- 
sesses it  through  a  special  quality,  extraordinarily  conferred, 
then,  either  Ambrose  was  a  lunatic,  or  "jus  baptismatis" 
means  something  else  than  a  quality  making  competent  for 
a  dipping.  All,  not  inextricably  involved  in  the  theory,  will 
be  likely  to  conclude  that  Ambrose  was  of  a  sound  mind, 
and  that  "the  power  of  baptism,"  divinely  conferred,  was 
the  power  to  change  the  condition  of  the  soul  by  spiritual 
cleansing. 

Tertullian,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  and  a  great  cloud  of  associ- 
ates, knew  nothing  of  a  baptism  characterized  by  definite 
action.  Their  baptism  was,  and  was  only,  one  of  changed 
condition,  however  efiected.  Patristic  baptism  was  a  changed 
condition  of  the  soul,  effected  by  the  influence  of  water, 
through  a  quality  specially  and  divinely  imparted  to  it. 

Allow  me  to  conclude  by  giving  a  definition  of  baptism 
from  Basil  Magnus,  iii,  736  : 

'Tt<;  6  Xoyo^  yj  fj  Sovancq  rod  j3a7:rc/T!JLaTo<;'  To  aXXoiiuOy^vat  rov  i3a~riX<'>- 
fievuv  y.ard  re  voov^  xai  Xoyov^  xaX  npa^iv,  xai  ysviffOai  exel'^u  xazd  rr^v  doO^tffav 
duvaucv^  oTzep  iari  to  i?  uu  iyevrjOrj. 


142  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

"What  is  the  purport  and  the  power  of  baptism?  Tliat 
the  baptized  be  changed  as  to  thought,  word,  and  act,  and 
become,  through  the  power  conferred,  the  same  as  that  of 
which  he  is  born." 

I  present  this  definition,  1.  Because  the  Latin  translation 
— "  Qu8e  sit  ratio  aut  vis  baptismatis?" — presents  ^^  ratio  "  iu 
the  same  relation  to  baptism  (ratio  baptismi)  as  does  the  ex- 
tract from  Tertullian. 

2.  Because  of  the  identity  of  conception  between  this  defi- 
nition of  baptism,  as  given  by  Basil,  and  that  given  in  "the 
conclusion"  of  Classic  Baptism. 

"  Tlie  conclusion  "  is  more  comprehensive  than  the  defini- 
tion of  Basil,  because  made  to  comprise  all  baptisms,  while 
his  contemplates  the  class  of  baptisms  efiected  by  influential 
agencies. 

Compare  "the  conclusion,"  as  explained,  p.  57:  "What- 
ever influence  is  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  charac- 
ter, state,  or  condition  of  any  object,  by  pervading  it  and 
making  it  subject  to  its  own  characteristic^  is  capable  of  baptiz- 
ing that  object,"  with  the  definition  of  Basil,  "  That  the 
baptized  be  changed,  as  to  thought,  word,  and  act,  and  be- 
come, through  the  power  conferred,  the  same  as  that  of 
which  he  is  born." 

"The  conclusion  "  was  deduced  from  a  collation  of  all  the 
passages  relating  to  baptism  in  Greek  classic  writings,  and 
the  definition  of  Basil  was  derived  from  immediate  personal 
knowledge  of  the  usage  of  his  native  tongue. 

"  The  conclusion  "  and  the  definition,  weighed  over  against 
each  other,  do  not  differ  so  much  as  by  the  weight  of  the  dust 
in  the  balances. 

Tertullian,  also,  and  Basil,  are  in  perfect  accord  on  this 
subject. 

It  is  a  hopeless  task,  then,  to  look  any  longer  for  a  "dip- 
ping" in  tliis  "figure  of  baptism." 

Reference  may  be  had  to  the  following,  among  many  other 
passages: 

Peccataenim  purgareethominem  sanctificare  aqua  sola  non 
potest  nisi  habeat  ct  Spiritum  sanctum. —  Tertullian,  iii,  1132. 


BAPTISM  OF  A  FOUNTAIN  BY  A  TREE.         143 

Aqua  opus  est,  operatic  Spiritus  sancti  est.  ;N"ou  sauat 
aqua,  nisi  Spiritus  descenderit. — Ambrose^  iii,  422. 

Et  bene  in  exordio  creaturse  baptismi  figura  signatur,  per 
quod  haberit  creatura  mundari.  (743.) 

Plurima  baptismatura  genera  prsemis^a  sunt,  quia  secutum 
erat  verum  illud  ununi.  (1248.) 

As  illustrative  of  ^^intinciosj"  the  following  has  special 
value: 

IIp\v  ^  To\vuv  i7reX6s2v  ttjv  aAij??)^  rod  Uvsu/jLaro^  jSa^rjV,  i^dXeiipov  Ta<; 
xax.UK;  ivrei^eiffaq  aoi  (70vyj6£ia<;. —  C/irysostom,  ii,  235. 

Any  overbold  man,  offering  this  passage  to  Dr.  Carson 
to  prove  that  i^afrjv  meant  something  else  than  a  dipping, 
must  expect  a  plentiful  sprinkling  of  his  characteristic  "At- 
tic salt."  Yet,  after  all,  the  xlvii  Prop,  of  Euclid  does  not 
challenge  more  absolute  assent  to  its  Q.  E.  D.,  than  does 
this  passage  and  its  context  demand  assent  to  the  clearness 
of  its  representation,  as  exhibiting  the  Holy  Spirit  removing 
sin-spots  from  the  soul,  as  a  painter  imperfect  colors  from  a 
picture,  and  using  the  waters  of  baptism,  not  for  a  dipping, 
but,  as  a  painter,  his  last  choicest  colors,  for  tincting  the  soul 
and  bringing  it  into  a  changed,  spotless  condition. 

Carson's  demand  for  the  "impossibility"  of  dipping,  is 
here  met  four-square. 


BAPTISM  OF  A  FOUNTAIN  BY  A  TKEE. 

Exodus  15:23-25. 

"And  when  they  came  to  Marah  they  could  not  drink  of  the 
watei's  of  Marah,  for  they  were  bitter;  therefore  the  name  of  it 
was  called  Marah. 

"  And  the  people  murmured  against  Moses,  saying,  What  shall 
we  drink? 

"And  he  cried  unto  the  Lord;  and  the  Lord  showed  him  a  tree, 
which  when  he  had  cast  into  the  waters,  the  waters  were  made 
sweet." 

Malta  sunt  genera  baptismatum,  sed  unum  baptisma,  clamat 
Apostolus.  (Eph.  4 :  5.)    Quare  ?    Sunt  baptismata  gentium,  sed 


144  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

non  sunt  baptisraata.  Lavacra  sunt,  baptismata  esse  non  pos- 
suDt.  Caro  lavatur,  non  culpa  diluiturj  immo  in  illo  lavacro 
contrabitur.  Erant  autem  baptismata  JudoBorum  (Mark  7  :  8), 
ab'a  Buperflua,  alia  in  figura.  Et  figura  ipsa  nobis  proficit,  quia 
veritatis  est  nuncia. — Ambrose,  iii,  424. 

Aliud  (genus  baptismatis)  etsi  non  ordinem  tenemus  .  .  . 
Moyses  misit  lignum  in  fontem,  et  ccepit  aqua  qua?  antea  ei*at 
amara,  dulcescere.  Quid  significat,  nisi  quia  omnis  creatura 
corruptelffi  obnoxia,  aqua  amara  est  omnibus  .  .  .  amara  est 
quaj  non  potest  auferre  peccatum.  Amara  ergo  aqua:  sed  ubi 
crucem  Cbristi,  ubi  aeceperis  cceleste  sacramentum,  incipit  esse 
dulcis  et  suavis:  et  merito  dulcis,  in  qua  culpa  rcvocatur.  Ergo 
si  in  figura  tantum  valueruut  baptismata,  quanto  amplius  valet 
baptisma  in  veritate  ?  iii,  427. 

Sicut  ergo  in  ilium  fontem  Moyses  misit  lignum,  hoc  est  pro- 
pbeta;  ita  et  in  hunc  fontem  sacerdos  pradicationem  Dominic89 
crucis  mittit,  et  aqua  fit  dulcis  ad  gratiam.  (iii,  393.)  .  .  .  et 
amaritudinem  suam  aquarum  natura  deposuit,  quam  infusa 
subito  gratia  temperavit.  (406.)  .  .  .  non  utique  dubitandum  est 
quod  superveniens  (Spiritus  sanctus)  in  fontem,  vel  super  eos 
qui  baptismum  consequuntur,  veritatem  regenerationis  opere- 
tur.  (410.) 

Myrrhse  fontis  amaritudine  per  ligni  gratiam  temperata,  cog- 
noscimus  esse  mundatos. — Ambrose,  ii,  1434. 

Ow.  d-d  ^u}mo  iyXu/.d'^OT}  uowp,  ii^  to  y^cuaS/^^at  rr^v  layw  duTou, 

Wisdom  of  Sirach,  88  : 5. 


OLD  QUALITY  CHANGED  AND  NEW  QUALITY  IMPAKTED. 

PATRISTIC    INTERPRETATION. 

"There  are  many  kinds  of  baptisms,  but  the  Apostle  an- 
nounces one  baptism.  AVhy?  There  are  baptisms  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, but  they  are  not  baptisms.  They  are  washings,  the}'  can- 
not bo  baptisms.  The  body  is  washed;  sin  is  not  washed  away: 
nay  by  that  washing  it  is  contracted.  But  there  were  baptisms 
of  the  Jews  (Mark  7 : 8),  some  unnecessary,  others  in  figure. 
And  the  very  figure  is  profitable  to  us,  because  it  is  the  messen- 
ger of  truth." — Ambrose,  iii,  424. 

"  There  is  another  kind  of  baptism,  although  we  do  not  pre- 


BAPTISM   OF   A   FOUNTAIN   BY  A   TREE.  145 

serve  the  order.  .  .  .  Moses  cast  the  wood  into  the  fountain,  and 
the  water  which  before  was  bitter  grew  sweet.  What  does  this 
signify,  except  that  every  creature  liable  to  corruption,  the 
water  is  bitter  to  all  ...  .  that  is  bitter  which  cannot  take 
away  sin.  Water,  therefore,  is  bitter;  but  when  thou  shalt  have 
received  the  cross  of  Christ  and  the  heavenly  sacrament,  it  be- 
comes sweet  and  pleasant:  and  that  is  with  reason  SAveet,  by 
which  sin  is  revoked.  Therefore,  if  in  figure  merely  baptisms 
were  so  powerful,  how  much  more  powerful  is  baptism  in  reality? 
(427.) 

"  As,  therefore,  Moses  cast  the  wood  into  the  fountain,  this  is 
projihetic;  so,  also,  does  the  jiriest  cast  the  proclamation  of  the 
Lord's  cross  into  this  fountain  and  the  water  is  made  sweet  for 
grace.  (393.)  .  .  .  the  waters  lay  aside  their  natural  bitterness, 
which  infused  grace  has  quickly  attempered.  (406.)  .  .  .  and 
certainly  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  the  Holy  Spirit  coming 
over  upon  the  fountain,  or  over  those  who  obtain  baptism, 
effects  true  regeneration.  (410.) 

"The  bitterness  of  the  fountain  of  Myrrhse  being  attempered 
by  the  grace  of  the  wood,  we  know  that  they  were  made  pure 
(baptized)." — Ambrose,  ii,  1434. 

"  Was  not  the  water  made  sweet  by  wood,  in  order  that  its 
power  might  be  made  known?" — Wisdotn  of  iSirach,  38  :5. 

Points  claiming/  attention. 

The  substantial  resemblance  between  the  baptism  of  this 
fountain  by  "wood,"  (symbol  of  the  Cross,)  changing  its 
condition  of  bitterness,  and  the  baptism  of  the  waters  by  the 
incumbent  Spirit  changing  their  condition  by  imparting  a 
new  quality,  is  too  evident,  and  sufficiently  explained  by 
remarks  on  the  latter  baptism,  to  require  more  than  the 
calling  attention,  briefly,  to  some  additional  points. 

1.  "  There  are  many  kinds  of  baptisms  J'  This  is  a  flat  con- 
tradiction of  the  theory  that  tells  us,  whether  it  be  of  a  world 
or  a  flea's  foot,  whether  of  saint  or  of  sinner,  whether  in 
heathendom  or  in  Christendom,  whether  in  fact  or  in  figure, 
a  baptism  is  an  unalterable  unity;  "a  definite  act;"  "a  mode, 
and  nothing  but  mode;"  a  change  in  it  is  a  destruction  of 
it.     Over  against  this  theory,  which  has  nothing  to  sustain 

10 


146  JUDAIC    BAPTISM 

it  but  self-assertion,  Ambrose  writes :  "  There  are  mawj  kinds 
of  baptisms.'' 

Inasmuch  as  we  have  seen  this  statement  emphatically  sus- 
tained by  the  facts  of  "  Classic  Baptism,"  we  take  sides  with 
the  Milanese  Bishop. 

2.  "  There  are  baptisms  of  the  Gentiles,  but  they  ore  not  bap- 
tisms.''' If  those  who  liave  a  right  to  write  authoritatively 
on  the  subject,  had  never  written  anything  else  but  this  sen- 
tence and  context,  it  would  be  enough  to  establish  a  twofold 
meaning  of  the  word  "baptism,"  and  to  overturn  the  theory 
which  contradicts  it. 

Ambrose  does  not  commit  the  absurdity  of  saying  that 
the  Gentiles  have  ??o  baptisms;  no  secwfor  baptisms.  lie  is 
discoursing  on  religion,  and  he  asserts  that,  in  their  religious 
rites,  they  have  nothing  which  can  be  called  "  baptism,"  in 
the  sense  in  which  he  uses  that  term,  because  they  have  no 
use  of  water  under  any  form  of  "  washing,"  which  is  capable 
of  changing  the  condition  of  the  soul,  by  taking  away  sin. 
"Washings,"  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  dipping,  covering,  they 
have  for  the  body;  "baptisms,"  which  cleanse  the  soul,  they 
have  not.  In  the  vocabuUiry  of  Ambrose,  "baptism  "  did  not 
mean  a  definite  act;  it  did  mean  a  change  of  condition  in  the 
soul,  through  the  influence  of  a  quality  divinely  communi- 
cated to  the  water. 

3.  ^^  There  is  another  kind  of  baptism..^'  Having  referred  to 
a  baptism  in  connection  with  the  axe  lost  in  the  Jordan, 
(which  we  will  meet  with  hereafter,)  Ambrose  says:  "  There 
is  another  kind  of  baptism;"  and  then  states  that  of  the  foun- 
tain of  Myrrha,  which  is  before  us.  If  these  baptisms  strike 
any  one  as  novelties,  let  them  remember  the  conclusions 
reached  in  "  Classic  Baptism,"  and  reflect  whether  the  two 
be  not  in  the  most  perfect  harmony.  The  theory  insists  that 
th-ere  can  be  but  "one  baptism."  Unfortunately  our  theor- 
ists have  confounded  a  dipping  and  a  baptism,  and  have  thereby 
got  into  a  world  of  trouble.  They  can  only  escape  by  get- 
ting rid  of  this  sad  error— /o??.s  el  origo  malorum. 

As  Tertullian  declares  that  "the  waters"  were  baptized, 
changed  in  condition,  by  a  new  quality  imparted  to  them  by 


BAPTISM  OF  A  FOUNTAIN  BY  A  TREE.         147 

the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  Ambrose  declares  that 
this  fountain  of  water  was  baptized,  changed  in  condition, 
by  the  removal  of  a  quality,  through  the  influence  of  a  tree, 
symbolizing  the  cross  of  Christ. 

4.  '■''That  is  bitter  which  cannot  take  away  sin.''  This  water, 
made  sweet,  and  impregnated  with  the  influence  of  this 
symbol  tree,  was  able  "  to  take  away  sin  ;''"=to  baptize;  "  cog- 
noscimus  esse  raundatos."  If  any  one  asks  Aow .?  I  answer, 
by  drinking.  For  the  principle  involved — baptism  by  drink- 
ing— we  have  abundance  of  authority,  not  only  in  wine- 
drinking  baptism,  and  in  opiate-drinking  baptism,  but  in 
baptism  by  drinking  at  a  fountain.  If  the  fountain  of  Si- 
lenus  was  capable  of  baptizing  after  that  *'kind  of  baptism" 
appropriate  to  its  peculiar  qualitj^,  why  should  not  the  foun- 
tain of  Myrrha  baptize  those  who  drank  of  it,  after  that 
"kind  of  baptism"  appropriate  to  the  new  quality  with 
which  it  had  become  impregnated  ? 

Ambrose  is  as  classically  orthodox  in  his  mode  of  baptiz- 
ing, as  he  is  in  the  nature  of  his  baptism.  His  theology  is 
another  matter. 

5.  "i/"  baptisms  in  figure  are  so  powerful.''  It  should  be 
written  deeply  on  every  mind,  that  this  Myrrha,  and  other 
kindred  transactions,  are  declared,  in  absolute  terms,  to  be 
"baptisms."  They  are  not  something  else,  in  fact,  and  only 
entitled  quasi  baptisms  by  a  theological  fiction.  They  are 
"baptisms"  in  their  own  right,  and  "powerful"  baptisms, 
too.  As  such,  they  "  figure  "  another  baptism  higher  and 
mightier  than  themselves.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Ambrose. 
Dipping  finds  no  more  countenance  in  this  Myrrha  baptism 
of  the  Patrists,  effected  by  wood  thrown  into  it,  than  by  the 
wine-baptism  of  the  Classics,  effected  by  water  poured  into  it. 

The  quotation  from  Ecclesiasticus  shows  the  controlling 
power  of  the  wood  over  the  water,  rendering  it  competent 
to  thoroughly  change  its  condition.  Classic  Baptism  has 
shown  that  the  development  of  such  a  power  constitutes  a 
baptism.  And  we  have  that  conclusion  reiterated  by  Am- 
brose, in  declaring  that  the  changed  condition  of  the  foun- 
tain of  Myrrha  was  a  baptism. 


148  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

So  Ovid  says  of  the  fountain  Salmacis,  "i*z5  est  notissima 
foniis,  .  .  .  ei  incerio  fontem  medlcamine  ilnxit."  If  Ungo  can 
express  a  quality  imparted  to  the  fountain  Salmacis,  why 
may  not  Pa-KziXut  be  used  to  express  a  quality  imparted  to  the 
fountain  Myrrha?  The  change  from  the  primary  meaning, 
is  no  greater  in  one  case  than  in  the  other.  The  evidence 
that  such  change  does  take  place,  in  fact,  is  as  great  in  the 
latter  case  as  in  the  former. 


BAPTISMS    BY  WATER. 

CHANGE    OF   CONDITION    THROUGH    INFLUENCE. 

DELUGE     PURIFICATION. 

Genesis  6  :  13  ;.  7  : 1,  18,  22, 

1.  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come  before 
me;  for  the  earth  is  filled  with  violence  through  them;  and  be- 
hold I  will  destroy  them  with  the  earth. 

7  : 1.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Noah,  Come  thou,  and  all  thy 
house,  into  the  ark;  for  thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before  me  in 
this  generation. 

V.  18.  And  the  waters  prevailed,  and  were  increased  greatly 
upon  the  earth ;  and  the  ark  went  upon  the  face  of  the  waters. 

Y.  22.  All  in  whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life,  of  all  that 
was  in  the  dry  land,  died. 

Inieryi'daiion, 

Quemadmodum  enim  post  aquas  dihivii,  quibus  iniquitas  an- 
tiqua  purgata  est,  post  Baptismum  (ut  ita  dixerim)  muudi. — 
Tertullkm,  i,  1209. 

Nam  ut  in  illo  mundi  baptismo,  quo  iniquitas  antiqua  purgata 
est,  qui  in  area  Noc  non  fuit  non  potuit  per  aquam  salvatus  fieri ; 
ita  nee  nunc  potest  per  baptismum  salvatus  videri  qui  bai^tiz- 
atus  in  Eeclcsia  non  ost.^ — Ci/piian,  1I3G. 

In  diluvio  quoque  figuram  baptismalis  prfficessisse  hcstcrno 
Cffipimus  disputare.  Quid  est  dihivium,  nisi  in  quo  Justus  ad 
seminarium  justitiro  reservatur,  peccatum  moritur?  .  .  .  Nonno 
hoc  ct  diluvium,  quod  est  baptismum;  quo  peccata  omnia  diluun- 
tur,  sola  justi  mens  et  gratia  rcsuscitatur? — Ambrose,  iii,  423. 


MUCH  WATER  AND  THE  THEORY.  149 

Non  tain  diluvium  qnam  bai^tismum  contigisse.  Baptismus 
plane  fuit,  per  quod  in  peccatoribus  iniquitas  sublata  est,  Noe 
justitia  conservata. — iv,  650. 

Tr^v  o5v  TOO  fiaiTTiffnaToi;  X^P^^  xaTaxXuatxbv  d>o;j.d!i£L — Basil,  i,  304. 
Aai  6  xaTaxXtjiTij.oq  .  .   .  TrposfyJTStjsv  .  .  .  raJv  d[xapTi(uv  xad^apiaiim. — 
Bidymus  Alex.,  696. 

Tramhtion, 

''For  as  .after  the  waters  of  the  deluge,  by  whicli  the  old  ini- 
quity was  purged,  after  the  baj^tism  (as  I  might  have  said)  of 
the  world."— Tertullian,  i,  1209. 

"  For  as  in  that  baptism  of  the  world,  by  which  the  old  ini- 
quity was  purged,  he  Avho  was  not  in  the  ark  of  Noah,  could  not 
foe  saved,  so,  now,  neither  can  he  be  saved  who  is  not  bajJtized 
in  the  church." — Cyprian,  1136. 

"  That  a  figure  of  baptism,  in  the  deluge,  also  went  before,  we 
began  to  argue  yesterday.  What  is  the  deluge,  but  that  by  which 
the  righteous  is  preserved  as  a  seed  of  righteousness,  while  sin 
perishes  ?  ....  Is  not  this  deluge  the  same  as  baptism,  by 
which  all  sins  are  washed  away,  and  the  soul  of  the  righteous, 
and  grace  alone,  preserved  ?" — Ambrose,  iii,  423. 

"Not  so  much  a  deluge,  as  a  baptism,  occurred.  Baptism  it 
■clearly  was,  because,  with  sinners,  iniquity  was  taken  away; 
with  Noah,  righteousness  was  presorvecL" — iv,  650. 

•" '  The  Lord  inhabit eth  the  flood.'  (Ps.  28 :  10.)  A  flood  is  an  over- 
flow of  water,  covering  all  that  is  under  it,  and  pui'ifying  every 
defilement.  Therefore  he -calls  the  grace  of  baptism  a  flood;  so 
that  the  soul  washed  from  sin,  and  cleansed  from  the  old  man, 
may  be,  afterwards,  a  fit  liabitation  of  God,  by  his  Spirit." — 
Basil,  i,  304. 

''  The  deluge  foretold  the  purification  of  sins." — Didy.  At,  696. 

MUCH  WATER  AND  THE  THEORY. 

Here  is  an  abundance  of  water.  "What  will  the  friends  of 
the  theory  do  with  it?  There  is  "a  complete  covering." 
Will  that  answer  the  purpose?  Dr.  Carsou  thinks  that  be 
can  get  a  dipping  out  of  this  deluge,  by  the  help  oi  figure. 
But,  observe,  his  figure  is  a  very  different  aftair  from  that 
of  Patrist  exposition.  They  make  one  baptism,  by  its  essen- 
tial uature,  to  figure  another  baptism  to  which  it  is  generic- 


150  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

ally  related ;  but  Carson  calls  on  figure  to  help  him  make  a 
baptism.  As  the  facts  of  the  deluge  stand,  outtopping  the 
highest  mountains  by  fifteen  cubits,  there  is  nodippuig,  and 
therefore  (according  to  the  theory)  no  baptism,  for  "baptism 
is  dipping,  and  dipping  is  baptism."  Kow,  Carson  calls  on 
figure  to  help  him  to  change  the  facts,  and  claims  a  transac- 
tion— whose  record  contradicts  his  theory — as  all  on  his  side, 
after  it  has  been  made  something  else  than  it  is. 

This  ever  recurring  demand  on  figure  to  help  a  false  theory 
out  of  trouble,  reminds  us  of  the  constant  necessity  of  the 
old  astronomers  to  add  cycle  and  epicycle  to  work  on  with 
their  mistaken  conception.  There  is  diflerence,  however, 
in  the  two  cases;  the  astronomer  hung  appendages  to  his 
theory,  to  meet  the  facts,  while  the  Baptist  hangs  append- 
ages to  the  facts,  to  meet  his  theory. 

This  flood  of  waters,  covering  its  object  for  a  large  portion 
of  a  year,  lends  but  little  comfort  to  those  who  accept  some 
modification  of  the  action,  yet  insist  on  a  momentary  cover- 
ing. The  subject  of  baptism  can  no  more  be  mastered  with 
"momentary  covering"  for  a  starting-point,  than  can  un- 
shorn Samson  be  bound  with  seven  green  withes.  Baptist 
argumentation  is  not  susceptible  of  being  amended.  It  must 
go  back  and  start,  ab  initiQ,  with  a  new  element  of  thought, 
and  follow  it  through  its  developments.  Old  facts  will,  then, 
assume  new  aspects,  and  this  deluge  baptism  will  be  quite 
intelligible.  Figure  and  epicycle,  alike,  may  be  thrown  aside 
when  the  true  central  thought  has  been  secured. 

Besides  the  dipping  of  the  world  into  the  flood,  by  the 
help  of  figure,  Carson  speaks,  repeatedly,  throughout  his 
book,  of  the  baptism  of  Noah  in  the  flood.  This  is  his 
language:  "AVhat!  Noah  not  immersed,  when  buried  in 
the  waters  of  the  flood  ?  Are  there  no  bounds  to  perverse- 
ness?  "Will  men  say  everything  rather  than  admit  (he  mode 
of  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  which  is  contrary  to  the  command- 
ments of  men?"  (p.  388.)  "What  could  be  a  more  expres- 
sive burial  in  water  than  to  be  in  the  ark,  when  it  was 
floating?  As  well  might  it  be  said  that  a  person  is  not 
buried  in  earth,  when  lying  in  his  coffin  covered  with  earth. 


MUCH  WATER  AND  THE  THEORY.  151 

May  not  a  person  in  a  ship  be  said  figuratively  to  be  buried 
in  the  sea?  They  who  were  in  the  ark  were  deeply  im- 
mersed." (p.  413.)  "  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  by 
being  buried  in  the  water  of  the  flood;  and  after  the  flood 
they  emerged  as  rising  from  the  grave."  (p.  462.) 

Will  any  one  expect  a  sober  answer  to  erratic  imaginings 
like  these?  The  expositor  who  is  willing  to  follow  a  rigid 
theory  to  issues  like  these,  and  indorse  to  bankruptcy  its 
demands  on  common  sense,  must  look  for  the  issuing,  at 
the  next  session  of  the  court,  of  a  writ  de  lunatico  inquirendo. 
"Much  theory  doth  make  thee  mad,"  honest  though  not 
courteous,  truth-loving  though  not  sober-minded,  Carson! 

It  is  a  reproach  to  truth  to  admit  the  claims  of  so  poor 
a  counterfeit,  even  to  a  hearing.  "Noah  and  his  family" 
(beasts,  birds,  and  creeping  things,)  "buried  in  the  flood  and 
emerging"  (on  the  summit  of  Ararat)  "as  from  the  grave!" 
What  next? 

SPECIAL   VALUE. 

There  is  an  especial  value  in  this  case  of  Deluge  Baptism 
as  enabling  us  to  point  out,  within  itself,  some  of  the  "  many 
kinds  of  baptisms." 

1.  If  we  regard  the  earth  merely  as  a  physical  body  and 
the  water  as  encompassing  it,  we  have  an  illustration  of  a 
simple  mersion  (baptism)  without  influence. 

2.  If  we  regard  the  earth  as  having  cultivated  fields,  houses, 
cities,  works  of  art,  then  this  universal  deluge  becomes  a 
mersion  (baptism)  with  influence,  ruinous  in  its  character. 

3.  If  we  take  into  view  men,  inhabiting  the  world  and 
unrepenting  sinners  against  God,  for  whose  punishment  this 
flood  of  waters  was  sent,  then,  it  becomes  a  mersion  (bap- 
tism)/or  influence,  designed  to  destroy — to  drown  men. 

4.  But  neither  of  these  iq  the  baptism  contemplated,  and 
drawn  out  from  the  case,  by  the  Patrists.  They  regarded 
the  earth  as  defiled  and  needing  to  be  purified — O  aqua, 
quae  humano  aspersum  sanguine,  ut  prsesentium  lavacrorum 
figura  praecederet,  orbem  terrarum  lavisti !  [Ambrose,  ii, 
1815.)    The  world  is  here  represented  as  polluted  by  murder, 


152  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

being  "sprinkled  with  human  blood,"  and  as  cleansed  by 
being  "  washed  "  by  the  deluge  waters.  This,  then,  was  con- 
ceived of,  not  as  a  physical  mersion,  but  as  a  baptism  for 
religious  purification,  accomplished  by  water  through  its 
quality,  divinely  communicated,  to  purge  and  sanctify. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Was  not  the  water,  in  fact,  used  in 
the  form  of  mersion  ?  Undoubtedly,  yet  not  as  a  necessity, 
but  accident,  which  may  or  may  not  be  in  such  baptism. 
Cloth  dyed  {pd-rm)  may  be  dyed  by  dipping  (/3a7rrw):  yet  "dip- 
ping" is  not  an  essential  to  "dyeing,"  but  an  accident  which 
may  or  may  not  be  present.  In  a  baptism  for  purijication, 
mersion,  in  like  manner,  may  or  may  not  be  present.  And 
whenever  present  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  feature,  much 
less  the  feature  of  the  baptism;  an}'  more  than  dipping,  when 
it  chances  to  be  the  form,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  dyeing. 
Proof  of  this  may  be  found  in  a  perfectly  analogous  case 
from  Chrgsosiom,  ii,  409. 

'EttscStj  Tzdaa  yj  yrj  roze  axdOapro^  ^v  aizo  too  xaTv^oo,  zai  t^?  zvtVoTj?, 
xm  Tcov  eWwXuihv  al/jLaTiuw,  xai  rwv  akku)\)  iiuXuff/xuJv  zatv  "Ekdi^vixcbv. 

"When  the  whole  earth  was,  then,  defiled  by  the  smoke, 
and  fume,  and  blood  of  idol  sacrifices,  and  other  pollutions. 
.  .  .  But  Christ  having  come,  and  having  suffered  without 
the  city,  he  purified  the  w;hole  earth  (ra<Toy  t^^v  p>  lxa(?r;/)e)." 
How  this  was  done  is  stated,  more  definitely,  in  a  few  lines 
preceding: 

"EfTTU^s  yap  TO  alixa  aTzd  r^?  -Xeupaq  iizl  rr^y  y^v,  -/.aX  zdv  iiukuffiiov  auz7,<z 
anavra  £^sy.dOrjp£v. 

"  For  the  blood  from  his  side  dropped  upon  the  earth, 
and  thoroughly  purged  away  the  pollution." 

We  have,  here,  evidence  that  a  world  may  be  defiled  by 
all  manner  of  pollution,  and  instead  of  a  necessity  for  a  mer- 
sion in  water,  outtopping  all  mountain  tops,  in  order  to  its 
purification,  drops  of  blood  falling  from  the  spear-pierced  side  are 
adequate  for  the  purification  of  all  the  earth. 

To  the  objection  that  the  word  "baptism"  is  not  used  in 
this  latter  case,  it  may  be  replied,  1.  All  the  facts — condition 
to  be  removed,  pollution;  mode  of  remedy,  dropping  blood; 
■condition  effected,  purification;  as  well  as  all  the  terms  em- 


MUCH  WATER  AND  THE  THEORY.  153 

ployed,  are  identical  with  the  facts  and  terms  in  other  cases 
to  which  the  title  of  "baptism"  is  given.  2.  A  secondary 
use  of  "baptism"  covering  this  case  is  in  proof.  3.  We 
shall  yet  have  overwhelming  evidence  establishing  the  same 
point.  4.  A  mersion  baptism  is  distinctly  repudiated  in  the 
present  case,  and  a  baptism  for  purification  is  presented. 

"The  old  iniquiti/  was  purged  by  the  waters  of  the  deluge," 
therefore,  (not  because  of  the  covering,)  it  is  called  "a  bap- 
tism of  the  world."  "  The  deluge  is  the  same  as  baptism  " — 
"Why  ?  Because  they  both  "  wash  sins  away."  The  dropping 
blood  from  the  Kedeemer's  side  is  the  same  as  baptism — 
Why?  Because  it  "washes  sin  away."  "IsTot  so  much  a 
deluge  as  a  baptism."  What  does  this  mean  ?  Not  so  much 
a  deluge  as  a  dipping,  an  immersion^  a  covering?  Is  not  this 
an  utterly  impossible,  absurd,  interpretation  ?  Is  it  not  ex- 
pressly said, — "because  sin  was  removed  and  righteousness 
established  ?"  Could  there  be  a  more  explicit  distinction 
between  a  deluge  and  a  baptism?  And  so,  Basil,  i,  304, 
"A  flood  is  an  overflow  of  water,  covering  all  that  is  under 
it  and  purifying  every  defilement."  Therefore  he  calls  the 
grace  of  baptism  a  flood,  ('  the  Lord  inhahiteih  the  flood,'  Ps. 
28  :  10,)  because  it  cleanses  the  soul.  A  flood  covers  to  bap- 
tize, to  cleanse  physically;  it  can  only  cleanse  what  it  covers; 
but  "grace"  baptizes  (cleanses)  the  soul,  and  "redeeming 
blood"  baptizes  (cleanses)  the  world,  without  covering  it. 

While,  therefore,  the  Deluge  presents  an  example  of  pri- 
mary baptism  in  which  the  earth  is  mersed,  by  the  varied 
acts  of  water  falling  from  heaven's  windows  and  rising  from 
the  bursting  fountains  of  the  deep,  and  kept  for  most  of  a 
year  in  this  state;  still,  it  is  a  patent  fact,  that  this  baptism 
is  not  regarded  in  the  reference  to  the  transaction  in  the 
passages  before  us;  but  another,  and  wholly  different  bap- 
tism, namely,  a  purification  by  these  waters,  irrespective  of 
the  form  of  their  operation,  in  which  they  see  a  figure  of 
that  baptism  which  is  the  highest  and  fullest  of  all  purifica- 
tions. 

If  such  a  case  as  this  fails  to  lend  help  to  the  theory,  where 
will  it  look  for  succor  ? 


154  JUDAIC    BAPTISxM. 


CHANGE  OF  CONDITION   THROUGH  SPECIAL  INFLUENCE 
DIVINELY  IMPARTED. 

JORDAN   HEALING. 

II  Kings  5  :  14. 

"Then   -vvent  ho  down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in 

Jordan,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God  :  and  his 

flesh  came  again  like  unto  the  flesh  of  a  little  child,  and  he  was 

clean." 

Scptuagini. 

Kai  y.arifi-f]  Ka'.p.av  y.ai  l^a-ziffaro  h  tS)  '  [opdd'^y^  i-rdxtq  xazd  to  p/i."-^'- 
' EXtaaii ;  y.u}  i-iffrpB(/'S'^  rj  adp^  duruv  ujq  adp^  -atdapwu  /nxpuu,  xai  Ixa- 
OapiaO-q. 

"And  Kaaman  went  down  and  baptized  (purified)  himself  in 
the  Jordan  seven  times,  according  to  the  word  of  Eiisha;  and 
his  flesh  came  again  like  the  flesh  of  a  little  child,  and  he  was 
made  pure." 

Ejcammation. 

All  trespassers  are  warned  from  this  ground  as  belonging 
by  unquestionable  right  to  friends  of  the  theory.  A  mere 
claim  of  ownership  will  hardly  pass  uncliallenged.  All 
ground  which  is  covered  by  fair  title-deeds,  or  all  that  has 
been  won  by  sword  and  spear,  in  fair  conflict,  we  will  cheer- 
fully yield.  Let  us  see  how  the  documents  read,  and  under 
what  right  possession  is  claimed. 

Baptist  Claim  for  a  Dipping. 
Carson  (pp.  59-61,  313-317)  vindicates  the  claim  of  the 
theory  with  a  force  and  positiveness  not  excelled,  certainly, 
by  any  other  Baptist  writer.     His  points  are  the  following: 

1.  "The  word  occurs  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  is  faithfully  rendered  dip  in  our  version.— II 
Kings  5  :  14."  (p.  59.) 

2.  "That  the  Greek  word  signifies  dip,  is  clear  from  the 
fact  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  original." 

3.  "lie  did  what  was  commanded.     It  is  described  as  an 


BAPTISM    BY   THE   JORDAN.  155 

immersion.  He  bathed,  and  consequently  he  immersed.  That 
ITaaman  was  immersed  is  as  certain  as  that  the  word  of  God 
speaks  truth.  He  was  enjoined  to  bathe.  Was  not  his  dijo- 
2)in[/  a  hilRlment  of  the  command  to  bathe?" 

4.  "  If  a  word  is  proved  to  dip  one  object,  it  may  dip  an- 
other.  JSTaaman  went  down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times." 

Carson's  Points  Examined. — 1.  "The  word  (/5ar-jCw)  in  the 
Greek  translation  (II  Kings  5  :  14)  is  faithfully  rendered  dip 
in  our  version."  If  any  one  else  had  made  such  a  state- 
ment, he  would  have  been  bespattered  with  "Attic  salt." 
I^one  knows  better  than  Dr.  C,  that  "our  version"  is  not 
made  from  the  Septuagint,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
translated  this  Greek  word — '■'-dip." 

2.  "  The  Greek  word  means  dip,  because  the  Hebrew 
word  means  dip."  Such  a  position  has  no  reliable  founda- 
tion. Of  a  similar  position  taken  by  an  opponent — that 
/3arr£^<u  must  mean  wash,  because  it  fullils  a  command  given 
by  iloytw,  which  means  to  wash — he  says  (p.  61):  "Lexicog- 
raphers, critics,  and  commentators,  receive  this  as  a  first 
principle,  but  are  imposed  on  by  a  mere  figment."  Again, 
of  a  \vriter  who  takes  identically  the  same  position  as  to  the 
translation  of  Isaiah  21 :  4,  which  Dr.  C.  takes  as  to  II  Kings 
5  :  14 — namely,  that  the  Greek  word  of  the  Septuagint  must 
mean  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  word  translated — he  says: 
"Were  this  the  assertion  of  all  the  lexicographers  in  exist- 
ence, it  is  false  and  extravagantly  foolish."  (p.  315.)  That 
is  to  say,  when  Dr.  C.  thinks  that  a  translating  word  is  of 
the  same  precise  value  as  the  translated  word,  the  principle 
which  would  make  the  translation  measure  the  height,  and 
depth,  and  length,  and  breadth  of  the  original,  is  true  and 
surpassingly  wise;  but,  when  he  thinks  differently,  then  the 
principle  becomes  "false  and  extravagantly  foolish."  It  is 
certainly  a  very  admirable  thing  to  have  an  autocratic  critic, 
who  can  never  err,  even  when  he  utters  contradictions.  On 
this  general  subject,  of  exact  correspondence  between  the 
Septuagint  and  the  Hebrew  text.  Principal  Fairbairn  says: 
"  The  Septuagint  is  far  from  being  a  close  translation.  They 
who  always  expect  to  find  in  it  the  key  to  the  exact  mean- 


156  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

ing  of  pnrticnlar  words  and  phrases,  are  by  no  means  to  be 
trusted."  {Herman.  3Ian.,  p.  62.) 

As  illustrative  of  the  correctness  of  this  remark,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  exhibiting  a  parallelism  with  the  passage 
under  consideration,  we  may  refer  to  Psalm  50 :  9.  Here, 
for  the  Hebrew  text,  (which  signifies  io  purify,  by  using  a 
religious  rite,  without  expressing  any  definite  action,)  the 
Septiiagiut  substitutes  the  sharply  definite  act,  sprinkle,  by 
which  the  purification  was  accomplished.  The  principle  is 
the  same  in  II  Kings,  only  its  development  is  reversed.  la 
the  Hebrew  we  have  a  word  expressive  of  definite  act,  and, 
in  the  translation,  we  have  a  condiiion,  which  includes  that, 
and  many  other  acts,  which  may  be  causative  of  such  condi- 
tion. The  Hebrew,  "  purify  with  hyssop,"  (which,  on  the  face 
of  it,  involves  sprinkling,  since  "hyssop  "  was  only  used  for 
this  mode  of  purifying,)  the  Septuagint  translates,  ^^ sprinkle 
with  hyssop."  lu  like  manner  (iar^ri'^ui  includes  sprinkling 
as  one  of  many  modes  by  which  its  demanded  Judaic  purifi- 
cation may  be  met.  And  this  purification  may  be,  was, 
termed  a  washing.  Both  these  points  are  exhibited  in  the 
passage  from  the  Son  of  Sirach,  already  considered. 

How  ungrounded  is  Dr.  Carson's  conclusion  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word,  from  the  meaning  (real  or  sup- 
posed) of  the  Hebrew  word,  I  need  not  farther  say. 

3.  "/?e  was  enjoined  io  bathe."  He  was  not  enjoined  to 
bathe.  To  wash  and  to  bathe  are  not  measures  of  each 
other.  ^^ He  bathed  in  fact."  There  is  no  sure  evidence  of 
such  fact.  "  He  dipped  himself."  Satisfying  evidence  is  want- 
ing,    "//e  immersed  himself."     Where  is  the  proof? 

In  justification  of  the  rejection  of  these  statements,  I  appeal 
to  the  usage  both  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  in  ques- 
tion. Neither  the  Hebrew  nor  the  Greek  word,  for  icash, 
requires  a  dipping,  or  an  immersion,  or  a  bathinq,  in  the  more 
common  sense  of  that  word,  covering  the  body  in  water. 
They  are  used  where  the  washings  are  local,  and  where  the 
water  is  applied  to  the  body,  and  the  body  is  not  i)ut  into 
the  water. 

The  Hebrew  word,  which  is  translated  dip,  has,  undoubt- 


BAPTISM    BY   THE   JORDAN.  157 

edly,  "to  dip"  as  its  primary  meaning;  but  this  does  not 
justify  Dr.  C.  in  the  dogmatic  assertion,  based  on  the  word, 
that  a  dipping  of  Naaman  took  place  on  this  occasion.  The 
word  has  other  meanings.  It  answers  to  ^dnzu)  in  Greek, 
and  tingo  in  Latin.  Like  these  words,  it  has  the  twofold 
radical  application,  to  dip  and  to  dye,  with  subordinate  modi- 
fications springing  out  of  both  these  meanings.  A  glance 
into  the  Concordance  of  Buxtorf  or  of  Fiirst,  particitlarly 
the  former,  will  show  that  7^D  and  P^D,  in  Hebrew,  cor- 
respond with  ^dnzu}  and  Panri^o)  in  Greek,  tingo  and  mergo 
in  Latin,  and  dip  and  immerse  in  English.  Hebrew  litera- 
ture being  comparatively  limited,  we  cannot  expect  to  find 
as  many  illustrations  of  varied  use,  as  in  other  languages. 
But  that  the  Hebrew  word  does  not  necessarily  mean  to  dip, 
covering  completely,  or  to  dip  at  all,  is  shown  by  its  use  in 
Genesis  37  :  31,  of  which  the  translation  by  the  Septuagint 

is — xai  iixuAwmv  ~uv  -^triuya  ru>  aiixari — "  and  they  Staincd  the  COat 

(Joseph's)  with  the  blood."  Our  Version  is,  "they  dipped 
the  coat  in  the  blood."  Whichever  translation  be  preferred, 
two  things  are  certain:  1.  The  Greek  translators  believed 
that  the  Hebrew  word  had  more  than  one  meaning.  2.  The 
object  of  the  verb  is  not  necessarily  covered  by  the  action 
of  the  verb,  and  therefore  no  immersion,  no  baptism  takes 
place.  Joseph's  coat  could  not  be  covered  by  the  blood  of  a 
kid,  any  more  than  the  lake  by  the  blood  of  a  frog.  An  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  is  not  necessarily  got  out  of  a  dip- 
ping. The  word,  of  itself,  neither  dips  nor  covers  Naaman. 
But  still  farther.  In  I  Chronicles  26:11,  we  find  this 
Hebrew  word  in  combination  with  that  of  Jehovah,  as  a 
proper  name,  the  import  of  which,  as  given  by  Gesenius,  is, 
"Whom  Jehovah  has  immersed,  i.  e.,  has  purified."  Kow, 
inasmuch  as  this  eminent  Hebraist  finds  the  meaning  of 
purification  growing  out  of  this  modal  verb,  used  in  ritual 
purification ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  Greek  translators  (in  Ps. 
50  :  9)  find  the  modal  verb  sprinkle,  expressive  of  purification; 
and  inasmuch  as  the  correspondent  Latin  modal  verb  tingo 
— sparsa  aqua  tingerc  cori)US — is  used  to  express  purification; 
and  inasmuch  as,  in  this  passage,  the  Greek  translators  have 


158  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

represented  this  modal  verb  by  a  word  which  has  been  proven 
to  express  purification  in  connection  with  Jewish  rites,  is  he 
not  a  bold  man  who  will  affirm  tliat  this  word  could  not  have 
secured  to  itself  the  idea  of  purification,  but  must  signify  a 
naked  dipping? 

But  Dr.  Carson  is  not  satisfied  with  assertion  which  makes 
nothing  of  facts  like  these.  He  must  make  the  divine  ve- 
racity depend  upon  his  judgment  of  a  Hebrew  word.  "  That 
Naaman  was  immersed,  is  as  certain  as  the  word  of  God 
speaks  truth."  When  the  theorists  make  the  "Christian 
honesty"  of  the  general  church  to  kick  the  beam,  weighed 
against  their  knowledge  of  a  Greek  word,  I  have  nothing 
to  say.  When  the  Tubbermore  Theorist  birches  "  the  angel 
Gabriel,"  and  "sends  him  to  school"  for  ignorantly  difter- 
ing  from  him  in  matters  of  exegesis,  I  am  quite  satisfied  that 
they  should  settle  their  own  quarrel.  But  when  any  maa 
makes  God's  truthfulness  to  depend  on  his  Hebrew  knowl- 
edge, or  any  other  knowledge,  then  I  indignantly  fling  in 
his  face  those  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teaeheth,  ^^  Let 
God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar  P' 

4.  But  one  other  point  remains  to  be  considered.  "  If  a 
word. is  proved  to  dip  one  object,  it  may  dip  another,"  (pro- 
vided it  is  of  a  like  character.)  I  can  readily  understand 
what  is  done  when  it  is  said,  "  He  dips  his  pen  in  the  ink;" 
"He  dips  his  hand  in  the  water;"  but  when  it  is  said,  "JS'aa- 
man  dipped  himself  in  the  water,"  I  confess  that  I  do  not 
find,  in  the  words,  any  such  distinct  statement  as  to  what  was 
done.  Can  a  man  dip  himself  as  he  dips  his  hand?  Can 
you  possibly  tell  from  the  Hebrew  word  what  was  done  in 
a  self-dipping?  If,  in  eflfecting  a  self-dipping,  the  whole 
transaction  must  be  modified  in  comparison  with  the  dip- 
ping of  anything  else,  may  it  not  be  true  that  there  is  such 
a  modification  of  meaning  that  there  is  no  dipping  at  all  ? 
May  not  the  object  of  the  verb  be  something  else  than  the 
person  of  Naaman  ?  Is  it  not  unusual  to  employ  this  word 
in  connection  with  a  dipping  of  the  whole  person?  Is  there 
an}'  other  case  of  the  kind  in  the  Bible?  Is  it  not  unusual 
in  any  other  language  to  use  this  word  to  express  a  dipping 


BAPTISM    BY   THE   JORDAN.  159 

of  the  entire  person?  Is  not,  strictly  speaking,  self-dipping 
an  impossibility?  Is  there  not  strong  reason  to  believe 
that  this  disease  was  local?  (See  v.  11.)  May  not  this  dis- 
eased spot  (well  understood  between  the  prophet  and  Naa- 
man,  and  therefore  not  mentioned)  have  been  the  object  of 
the  verb,  both  in  the  command  and  in  the  execution  of  the 
command? 

But  farther.  He  was  to  dip  "seven  times;"  and  Carson 
says,  "from  head  to  foot."  Did  he  come  out  of  the  water 
each  time,  and  go  in  afresh,  until  the  seventh  time?  Or, 
having  gone  into  the  water,  and  having  dipped  what  was 
out  of  water,  more  or  less,  did  he,  remaining  in  the  water, 
dip  again  and  again,  head,  &c.,  seven  times?  If  this  was 
the  process,  then  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  did  not  dip 
himself,  "  from  head  to  foot,"  seven  times,  and  that,  after  all, 
this  dipping  was  but  that  of  a  part  of  the  person. 

When  we  examine  this  case,  interpreted  as  self-dipping, 
there  is  much  about  it  which  the  theory  leaves  unillumined. 

There  may  have  been  good  reason  why  the  translators  re- 
jected the  simply  modal  character  of  the  word,  and  gave,  as 
its  representative,  one  which  never  means  "dip,"  but  is  al- 
ways expressive  of  condition,  and,  Judaically,  of  a  purified 
condition,  which  is  just  what  the  case  demands. 

But  Dr.  Carson  objects:  "If /Ja—tTw  here  expresses  puri- 
fication, then  there  were  seven  purifications."  A  reference 
to  Psalm  12  :  7,  "The  words  of  the  Lord  are  pure,  .... 
as  silver  purified  seven  times,"  will  show  that  such  conjunc- 
tion of  words  is  allowable.  Tertullian,  ii,  575,  is  not  alarmed 
by  seven  purifications.  He  represents  the  case  as  showing 
forth  power  to  cleanse  the  seven  capital  sins  of  the  Gen- 
tile nations:  "Idololatria,  blasphemia,  homicidio,  adulterio, 
stupro,  falso  testimonio,  fraude.  Quapropter  septies  quasi 
per  singulos  titulos  in  Jordane  lavit,  siraul  et  ut  totius  heb- 
domadis  caperet  expiationem;  quia  unius  lavacri  vis  et  pleni- 
tudo  Christo  soli  dicabatur."  "  Wherefore  he  washes"  (not 
dips)  "  in  the  Jordan  seven  times,  as  if  for  the  several  sins,  and 
that  he  might  receive  expiation  from  all  seven  at  once ;  for  the 
power  and  fulness  of  one  washing  belonged  to  Christ  alone." 


160  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Fuller,  justly  honored  with  high  position  among  his 
brethren,  has  written  on  baptism,  and  examined  this  par- 
ticular passage.  He  thus  pleads  for  fair  dealing:  "Should 
any  one  review  this  argument,  I  only  ask  that  he  will  quote  me 
fairly,  and  show  me  as  a  brother  where  the  flaw  is,  and  I  will 
confess  it."  I  cannot  review  his  book,  but  will  tr^'^  to  quote 
*'  fairly  "  his  words.  To  prove  the  facility  and  accuracy  with 
which  [iarM'^.u)  can  be  translated  he  says:  "  In  short,  the  trans- 
lators of  our  Bible  have,  themselves,  exposed  the  pretext  that  there 
is  any  difficulty  as  to  the  word  baptizo.  In  the  case  of  Kaaman, 
the  Septuagint  uses  baptizo,  and  the  translation  renders  it 
'dip.'  Then  went  he  down  and  dipped  (ebaptisato)"  (p.  11). 
The  italics  are  Dr.  Fuller's.  I  have  read  this  statement  over 
once,  twice,  thrice,  and  twice  thrice,  feeling  that  it  could 
not  possibly  mean,  what  on  its  face  it  seemed  to  mean;  but 
there  were  the  staring  words  charging  a  band  of  men,  "of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worth}-,"  with  coldly  planned 
hypocrisy,  and  basing  that  charge  upon  the  statement  of  a 
fact,  not  one  syllable  of  which,  as  relating  to  those  men,  was 
true.  As  to  the  first  of  these  charges — '■^pretext  of  difficulty  in 
translcdiug  baptizo^' — I  will  quote  the  words  of  a  Baptist  scholar 
(after  reading  Classic  Baptism),  whom  Dr.  Fuller  would 
cheerfully  confess  to  have  but  few  peers  among  Baptist 
scholars;  they  are  as  follows:  "  You  have  certainly  shown  how 
DIFFICULT  it  is  to  frame  a  definition  of  the  act  of  baptism,  that  shall 
be  free  from  objection,  and  satisfactory  even  to  Baptists  themselves." 
If  this  authority  is  not  sufficient  to  suffuse  with  shame  the 
charge  of  "pretext  of  difficulty,"  then  let  me  refer  Dr.  F.  to 
Classic  Baptism,  (pp.  242-4,)  where  he  will  find  sufficiently 
"exposed"  the  ])retext  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  translat- 
ing fia-rc^w,  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Fuller,  D.D.  As 
to  the  second  statement:  that  "dip"  in  II  Kings  5 :  14,  is 
a  translation  of  ftar.ri^u),  out  of  the  Septuagint;  a  statement 
made  in,  and  for,  an  important  issue,  it  is  simply  shocking. 
Dr.  Carson  knew  that  it  was  not  true.  Dr.  Fuller  knew  that 
it  was  not  true.  Did  they,  then,  design  to  sustain  their  cause 
by  a  designed  appeal  to  an  untruth?  By  no  means.  The 
case  is  illustrative  of  the  ruinous  effects  of  assumption  and 


BAPTISM    BY   THE   JORDAN.  161 

presumption.  These  writers  assume  identity  of  value  be- 
tween the  Hebrew  word  and  the  Greek  word,  and  then 
presume  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  they  speak  of 
the  translation  of  one  word  or  the  other.  The  assumption 
is  false;  the  presumption  is  monstrous.  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
that  this  style  of  argumentation  by  friends  of  the  theory  is 
'  not  limited  to  the  present  case.  They  write  as  thous^h  they 
were  absolved  from  all  the  laws  of  language  which  interfere 
with  their  idolized  theory,  and  not  satisfied  with  saying  that 
"idiocy"  and  "childhood"  confess  the  truth  of  their  princi- 
ples, go  on  to  proclaim,  that  if  men,  and  angels,,  aye,  and  the 
Deity,  too,  do  not  say  "  it  is  so"  it  is  because  there  is  no  truth 
in  them ! 

I  do  not  present  this  error  of  fact  as  a  "  flaw  in  the  argu- 
ment;" it  is  a  bottomless  pit,  down  into  which  the  whole 
statement  plunges  out  of  sight. 

This  case  is  resumed  (p.  38)  thus  :  "  The  instance  where  it 
occurs  literally  is  in  the  history  of  Naaman.  .  .  .  Here,  in 
a  work  known  by  Jesus,  and  cited  by  him,  we  find  baptizo, 
and  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  mean  immerse.  Jesus  uses 
the  same  word,  and  thus  commands  the  very  same  act. 
'Naaman  went  down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  (ebap- 
tizato)  in  the  Jordan.'  All  concede  that  this  was  immersion. 
Now  Jesus  commands  this  very  act.  .  .  .  The  Septuagint 
says,  IsTaaman  'ebaptisato  en  to  lordane.'  ...  In  Matthew 
3:6  we  are  told  that  the  people, ' ebaptizonto  en  to lordane,' 
the  very  same  expression." 

Review  of  argument. — 1.  When  Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  it  occurs 
literally,"  i.  e.  in  primary  physical  sense,  he  assumes  a  vital 
point.  It  is  in  proof  that  the  word  is  used  otherwise.  The 
assumption  oi  a  particular  use,  determinative  of  the  question, 
is  "  flaw"  number  one. 

2.  "It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  mean  immerse."  It  is 
not  admitted  to  mean  "  immerse"  in  the  sense  to  dip.  It  is 
not  admitted  to  mean  "immerse"  as  representing  any  defi- 
nite act.  It  is  not  admitted  to  mean  "immerse,"  only,  or, 
at  all,  in  the  Baptist  use  of  that  word.  This  second  assump- 
tion is  "flaw"  number  two. 

11 


162  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

3.  "Jesus  uses  the  same  word,  and  thus  commands  the 
very  same  act."  The  assumption  that  the  use  of  the  same 
word  must  convey  the  same  idea,  emhodying  the  assumption 
that  tlie  word  did  convey  but  one  idea  in  the  days  of  the 
Septuagint  translators,  and  the  farther  assumption  that  it  did 
continue  for  centuries  after  to  convey  but  one  idea,  is  "flaw" 
number  three.  "Commands  the  very  same  act."  The  as- 
sumption that  any  form  of  act  was  ever  commanded,  being 
utterly  groundless,  is  "flaw"  number /our,  Dr.  Fuller  being 
himself  judge;  for  (p,  29)  he  tells  us,  no  form  of  act  is  com- 
manded, "  it  matters  not  how  the  immersion  is  eftected." 

4.  "All  concede  that  this  was  immersion."  The  assump- 
tion of  such  concession  being  without  foundation,  constitutes 
"flaw"  nxxmher five. 

5.  "  Now  Jesus  commands  this  very  act."  The  assumption 
in  this  assertion  placing  Dr.  F.,  again,  in  antagonism  with 
Dr.  F.,  as  well  as  with  the  anti-theorists,  we  have  "flaw" 
number  six. 

6.  "The  Septuagint  says,  'baptized  en  to  lordane;'  the 
New  Testament  says,  'baptized  en  to  lordane;'  the  very 
same  expression."  The  assumption  that  the  same  expression 
in  a  limited  phrase,  carries  with  it  sameness  in  all  governing 
particulars,  though  the  usage  be  separated  by  centuries,  is 
without  warrant  in  common  sense  or  exegetical  law. 

"The  wool  was  bapted  in  the  cbjehouse  to  free  it  from  all 
greasy  quality."  "The  wool  \\i\Q  bapted  in  the  dyehouse  a 
scarlet  color."  Dr.  Fuller  will  admit  that  the  same  phrase, 
here,  does  not  carry  with  it  the  same  meaning.  To  assume 
that  "baptized  in  the  Jordan"  in  connection  with  a  miracu- 
lous cure  of  leprosy,  must  mean  the  same  thing  when  used 
generations  after,  under  another  dispensation,  and  in  con- 
nection with  a  religious  rite,  is  "flaw"  number  seven. 

Perhaps  we  ought  to  thank  Dr.  Fuller  that  he  has  not 
taken  under  his  patronage — "went  down  and  dipped  seven 
times  in  Jordan,"  (as  assumption  number  eight,)  the  usual 
argument  of  his  friends — "went  down  into  the  ?t^a^(r,"  and 
thus  proved  (?)  a  dipping. 

This  sevenfold   dipping  baptism  suggests  the  following 


BAPTISM    BY    THE   JORDAN.  163 

problem:  If  N"aiiman  was  baptized  seven  times  in  the  Jordan 
and  benefited  by  it,  how  many  times  must  AristobuUis  have 
been  baptized  in  the  fish-pool  to  have  been  drowned  by  it? 
"We  commit  this  question  to  the  charge  of  the  arithmetical 
section  of  the  friends  of  the  theory. 

Jewish  translators. — Having  looked  at  this  passage  from  the 
Baptist  point  of  view,  one  that  turns  on  the  performance  of 
an  act,  I  now  remark  that  it  is  of  importance  to  bear  in  mind 
that  the  translators  of  the  Septuagint  were  Jews.  The  Jews 
used  the  word  [ia.-ri%u)  in  their  religious  rites  to  express,  as 
has  been  proved,  «  change  of  condition  irrespective  of  the  per- 
formance of  any  particular  act.  Now,  in  this  transaction  we 
have  a  change  of  condition  identical  with  that,  removal  of 
leprosy,  secured  by  some  of  their  religious  rites;  and  for 
such  change  of  condition  the  ordinary  use  of /Sarrrttw,  express- 
ing a  purified  condition,  is  appropriate.  It  is  proper  to  at- 
tribute its  appearance  in  the  passage  to  such  national  use, 
rather  than  to  make  it  the  translation  of  a  word,  with  which, 
in  its  primary  meaning,  it  is  never,  in  the  Septuagint  nor  in 
the  Classics,  used  as  an  equivalent. 

Patrists.—T\\Q  Patristic  view  of  the  passage  sustains  this 
conclusion.  Ambrose  (ii,  426,)  says:  Diximus  figuram  prre- 
cessisse  in  Jordane,  quando  ITaaman  leprosus  ille  mundatus 
est.  .  .  .  Ergo  babes  unum  baptisma.  "  We  have  said  that 
a  figure  of  bai3tism  preceded  in  the  Jordan,  when  Naaraan, 
that  leper,  was  cleansed.  .  .  .  Thus  you  have  one  kind  of 
baptism."  The  baptism  is  made  to  centre  in  the  changed 
condition, — the  healing  and  consequent  cleansing.  And  this 
changed  condition  is  attributed  to  a  peculiar  power  of  the 
water,  and  not  to  the  manner  of  using  it.  Quid  ergo  signi- 
ficat?  Vidisti  aquam;  sed  non  aqua  omnis  sanat;  sed  aqua 
sanat,  qure  habet  gratiam  Christi.  (422.)  "  What,  then,  does 
it  signify?  Thou  hast  seen  the  water;  but  all  water  does 
not  heal,  but  that  water  heals  which  has  the  grace  of  Christ." 
The  healing  of  Naaman  did  not  depend  upon  the  manner 
of  his  using  the  waters  of  the  Jordan,  but  upon  the  divinely 
imparted  power.  The  prophet  specified  no  form  of  use.  In 
whatever  form  he  used  them,  had  he  used  them  in  a  difi:erent 


164  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

form,  the}'  would  have  been  equally  efficacious.  ThePa- 
trists  make  the  baptism  consist  in  the  effect  produced,  not 
in  the  manner  of  use,  and  thus  agree  with  the  Septuagint 
translators.  Mode  of  use  being  neither  enjoined  nor  of  con- 
trolling value.  We  conclude  then;  if  there  was  any  dipping 
in  this  case,  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Hebrew  word; 
which  word  no  more  controls  the  meaning  of  /Sa-rt'^,  than 
does  (idT.Tu)  to  which,  and  not  to  ^anzi^w^  it  is  related  in  all 
its  Hebrew  use. 


DISEASED  CONDITION  CHANGED  TO  CONDITION  OF 
HEALTH. 

BETHESDA   HEALING. 

John  5:  4. 

'•  For  an  angel  went  down  at  a  certain  season  into  the  pool 
and  troubled  the  water;  Avhosoever  then  first  after  the  troubling 
of  the  water  stej^ped  in  was  made  whole  of  whatsoever  disease 
he  had." 

"0  o3v  izpuiTo^  i/J-l^a-:  /isrd  tyjv  rapa/ijv  too  vSaro-;  vyir^q  iyivzro. 

Figure  of  Baptism. 

Tunc  curabatur  unus,  nunc  omnes  sanantur.  Xon  sanat  bap- 
tismus  pertidorum,  non  mundat,  sed  polluit. 

Ergo  et  ilia  piscina  in  figura:  ut  credas  quia  in  hunc  fontem 
vis  divina  desccndit. 

Habes  quartum  genus  (baptismatis)  in  jiiscina,  quando  move- 
batur  aqua. — Ambrose,  iii,  395,  42G. 

''Then  one  was  cured,  now  all  arc  healed.  The  baptism  of 
the  unbelieving  does  not  heal,  it  does  not  cleanse,  but  pollutes." 

"Then,  that  pool  is  lor  a  figure:  that  you  may  believe  that 
a  divine  power  descends  into  this  fountain." 

"  You  have  a  fourth  kind  of  baptism  in  the  pool,  when  the 
water  was  troubled." — Ambrose,  iii,  395,  42G. 

BAPTISM  BY  THE  POOL  OF  BETHESDA. 

Although  this  transaction  is  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  belongs  to  the  Jewish  economy  and  not  to  the 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   POOL   OF   BETHESDA.  165 

Christian.  It  is  introduced  here  because  of  its  essential 
unity  with  that  class  of  baptisms  now  under  consideration. 
A  purgative  power,  beyond  that  merely  physically  washing 
quality  which  belongs  to  all  water,  was  attributed  to  the 
Deluge.  To  the  Jordan  water,  as  used  by  Kaaman,  was 
communicated  a  curative  power,  not  belonging  to  Arbana 
or  Pharpar,  or  inherently  to  the  Jordan  itself.  The  same  is 
true  with  regard  to  the  waters  of  Bethesda.  The  usual 
qualities  of  water  belonged  to  them  at  all  times;  but  "at  a 
certain  season"  an  additional  quality  was  divinely  imparted 
to  them,  by  means  of  which  they  exercised  a  controlling  in- 
fluence over  any  disease  subjected  to  their  power,  relieving 
the  sufferer  and  restoring  him  to  perfect  soundness  of  body. 

Special  Points. — 1.  If  there  is  anything  determined  beyond 
controversy,  as  to  this  pool,  it  is  that  Us  -power  to  baptize  was 
limited  to  a  certain  time.  Ambrose  is  entirely  explicit  on  this 
point:  "You  have  a  fourth  kind  of  baptism  in  the  pool, 
lohen  the  water  was  troubled."  Now  there  was  not  one  particle 
of  water  added  to  the  contents  of  the  pool  at  the  time  of  this 
troubling.  Its  capability  for  baptism,  therefore,  did  not  arise 
from  increased  depth  of  water.  If  it  had  capacity  for  physi- 
cal mersion  at  this  time,  it  had  the  same  capacity  every  day 
in  the  year.  But  it  could  baptize  at  this  time,  and  it  could 
not  baptize  at  any  other  time.  Ko  water  being  added  in  the 
one  case,  and  none  being  subtracted  in  the  other,  it  follows, 
therefore,  with  the  same  rigid  necessity,  as  does  the  conclu- 
sion in  any  demonstrated  mathematical  proposition,  that  the 
baptism  spoken  of  cannot  be  a  phr/sical  mersion. 

2.  This  conclusion  is  sealed  by  fact,  superadded  to  logic, 
showing  that  no  physical  mersion  took  place  when  this  soli- 
tary baptism  took  place.  The  baptism  was  efi'ected,  neither 
by  the  party  dipping  himself,  nor  by  being  dipped  by  any 
one  else,  but  by  "  stepping  in  "  (t//  /?«?)  the  troubled  water. 
Whether  these  waters  reached  to  "the  ankles,"  or  to  "the 
knees,"  or  to  "the  loins,"  as  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  we  are  not 
told;  but  we  are  told  that,  enterincj  in — though  it  wet  but  the 
soles  of  the  feet,  as  of  the  priests  bearing  the  ark  through 
Jordan — efi:ected  a  baptism,  thoroughly  changed  the  dis- 


166  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

eased  condition,  and  brought  into  a  condition  of  health. 
But  some  earnest  friend  of  the  theory  may  cry :  "Ilokl!  Xo 
dipping?  Why,  for  what  else  did  he  'enter  in'  the  water, 
but  for  a  dipping?  Could  he  not  have  been  sprinkled  out  of 
the  water?  And,  as  for  one  to  do  the  dipping,  where  was 
the  angel?  Did  not  he,  too,  'go  down  into  the  water* — both 
the  angel  and  the  sick  man — and  why,  if  not  to  dip  into  the 
water  ?  I^o  dipping !  What  but '  a  lack  of  Christian  honesty ' 
could  resist  such  convincing  evidence?"  Well,  I  will  con- 
cede this  much:  the  evidence  for  this  angel  dipping,  is  quite 
as  convincing  as  in  some  other  cases,  which  we  may  look  at 
by  and  by. 

3.  A  third  point,  claiming  to  be  brought  into  bolder  relief 
by  distinct  mention,  is  the  presence,  in  this  transaction,  of  a 
ihorovgh  change  of  condition.  Proof  is  needless.  It  is  the  sine 
qua  non  feature  of  the  whole  affair,  as  it  is  also  of  every  bap- 
tism. Its  presence  is  full  justification  for  Ambrose  in  call- 
ing it  "a  fourth  kind  of  baptism." 

4.  The  position  occupied  by  this  "troubled"  water,  in 
relation  to  the  baptism,  is  that  of  efficient  agency,  and  not 
of  a  receiving  element. 

If  this  point  be  established,  the  theory  at  once  vanishes 
into  thin  air.  In  every  primary  physical  mersion,  there  are 
always  present  a  baptizer,  or  a  baptizing  agency,  a  baptized 
object,  and  a  receiving  element,  within  which  the  baptized 
object  finds  its  rest,  and  enters  upon  its  changed  condition. 
The  Baptist  theory  affirms  that  iSanzH^u)  represents  nothing 
but  a  definite  form  of  action,  carrying  its  object  within  the 
element,  and,  without  resting  there,  bringing  it  out  again. 
This  notion  has  been  so  utterly  ground  into  impalpable  pow- 
der, between  the  millstones  of  facts,  that  we  may  let  it  go, 
for  the  present,  to  the  winds.  But  some  theorist  may  say: 
"Suppose  the  definite  act  be  abandoned  as  an  error,  still 
'  there  remains  a  covering  over,  and  here,  as  our  final  refuge, 
we  fight  our  last  battle."  To  this  we  reply:  It  is  necessary 
to  determine  whether  this  "covering  over"  is  essentially 
transient  or  of  indefinite  continuance.  If  the  former,  then 
we  are  brought  back  to  a  dipping  under  another  name.     If 


BAPTISM   BY  THE   POOL   OP   BETHESDA.  1G7 

the  latter,  then  all  the  radical  results  flowing  from  this  new 
position,  must  be  acceptetl.  But,  whether  accepted  or  not, 
as  we  aim,  not  merely  at  the  overthrow  of  a  mistaken  theory 
of  a  word,  but  to  establish  truth,  we  proceed  to  show  that  a 
baptism  is  not  limited,  as  the  amended  theory  would  afiirm, 
to  the  enclosure  of  an  object  within  a  fluid,  but  that  a  fluid, 
present  in  a  baptism,  may  be  there,  not  as  a  receiving  ele- 
ment, but  as  an  efficient  agency,  effecting  a  baptism — change 
of  condition  without  any  enclosure. 

In  support  of  this  position,  I  appeal,  1.  To  those  multi- 
plied cases  adduced  in  Classic  Baptism,  in  which  study,  grief, 
questions,  disease,  are  represented  as  agencies  in  eftecting  bap- 
tisms, where  physical  covering  is  impossible,  and  where  im- 
aginary covering  is  never  stated  nor  intimated.  2.  To  those 
cases  mentioned  in  Classic  Baptism,  where  a  fluid  element 
is  employed  as  the  agency  in  effecting  the  baptism,  without 
any  covering.  (1.)  Mot  iron,  baptized  by  water,  as  agency, 
without  covering,  bringing  it  into  a  cold  condition  (p.  325). 
(2.)  Intoxicating  wine,  baptized  by  water,  as  agency,  not 
covering  it,  but  mixed  through  it,  and  bringing  it  into  an 
unintoxicating  condition  (p.  339).  (3.)  Water,  itself,  im- 
pregnated with  an  intoxicating  principle,  and  baptizing,  as 
an  agency,  by  drinking,  bringing  into  a  changed  condition, 
resembling  that  of  a  drunken  man  (p.  330).  (4.)  Wine,  as 
an  agency,  baptizing  men  by  its  intoxicating  quality  without 
covering,  by  drinking,  bringing  into  a  condition  of  drunken- 
ness (pp.  316-342).  3.  To  the  case  in  hand,  where  the  water 
is  impregnated,  not  wath  an  intoxicating  principle,  but  with 
a  sanative  power,  the  influence  of  which  was  to  be  developed, 
not  by  drinking,  but  by  contact.  A  baptism  is  effected;  the 
condition  of  the  diseased  man  is  thoroughly  changed;  there 
is  no  "covering  over;"  the  result  is  not  due  to  Avater  as  a 
fluid,  but  as  a  vehicle  through  which  divine  power  is  com- 
municated, which  divine  power  is  exerted  without  calling 
into  exercise  the  covering  quality  of  water. 

If  these  facts  do  not  establish  the  position,  that  water, 
w^ine,  or  any  other  fluid,  (possessed  of  a  quality  capable  of 
controlling  condition  without  mersion,)  is  capable  of  baptizing 


168  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

as  an  agency,  without  acting  as  a  receiving  element,  then 
evidence  has  lost  its  power  to  control  conclusions.  But  if 
they  do  suffice  to  establish  this  position,  then,  the  amended 
theory,  "covering  over" — last  refuge  of  its  friends — perishes 
without  remedy. 

5.  This  baptism  hy — not  dipping  in,  nor  covered  wiih — 
Bethesda  water,  proves  that  Naaman  was  baptized  b)j  the  in- 
fluence communicated  through  the  water  of  Jordan,  and  that 
his  baptism  consisted  in  his  changed  bodily  condition  as  to 
the  leprosy,  and  not  in  his  dipping — supposing  that  to  have 
been  present  in  the  transaction.  The  same  is  true  as  to  the 
baptism  of  the  world  bu  the  deluge  water.  There  was  a  bap- 
tism here  of  the  world  in  the  waters;  but  it  is  not  that  baptism 
to  which  attention  is  directed,  but  the  cleansing  of  the  world 
from  its  sin-defilements,  by  the  agency  of  these  world-em- 
bracing waters.  Therefore  Ambrose  (iii,  426)  groups  them 
all  together:  "  Ergo  habes  unum  baptisma  (quando  Naaman 
leprosus  ille  mundatus  est),  aliad  in  diluvio,  habes  iertium 
genus,  quando  in  mari  Rubro  baptizati  sunt  patres,  habes 
quarium  genus  in  piscina,  quando  movebatur  aqua."  All 
these  are  baptisms  bj^  changes  of  condition,  through  water 
as  the  agency,  and  not  as  a  receiving  element.  And  they 
are  of  "one,"  and  "another,"  and  a  "third,"  and  a  "fourth" 
genus  of  baptism.     '-'-  Multa  sunt  cjencra  baptlsmatum.'' 

6.  We  have  the  clearest  proof  that  the  ground  on  which 
Ambrose  rests,  in  calling  all  these  cases  baptisms,  is  the 
change  of  condition,  which  is  the  central  truth  presented  in 
each.  And  it  is  this  feature  of  their  baptism — a  thoroughly 
changed  condition — which,  in  Ambrose's  view,  qualifies  a 
purified  world,  a  purified  Israel,  a  purified  Naaman,  a  puri- 
fied Bethesdaite,  to  be  a  "figure  "  of  that  higher,  holier,  per- 
fect baptism,  effected  through  the  water  impregnated  with 
the  purifying  and  soul-regenerating  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  which  he  and  other  Patrists  so  fully  believed. 


BAPTISM   BY   WASHING.  169 


WATEK  APPLIED  TO  THE  BODY  WITH  DIVERSITY  OE  FORM 
AND  EXTENT. 

BAPTISM   BY  WASHING. 

Leviticus  15 :  5. 

"And  whosoever  toucheth  his  bed,  shall  cleanse  his  clothes 
and  wash  himself  with  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even." 

Interpretation. 

Tivoq  dk  evtxsv  i-\  ro  /SaKTCfffia  epyjixai  6  XptaTo';  avay/Muiv  eirrelv,  xai 
i~).  Tzolov  epyerac  ^d-rc(T/j.a  ....  Bd-Kziffixa  ^jw  to  ' luudalxo'^,  ro  po~u)v 
amiiaruwv  anaXXdrzo'^^  6u  raJv  xard  to  aw^eiddq  d;iapT7jfidTwv  .... 
Aouffezat  yap  to  <jd>/xa  auzou  udari  xa&apw. 

"  But  it  is  necessary  to  say  why  Christ  comes  for  baptism,  and 
for  what  baptism  he  comes.  For  this  is  as  necessary  to  know  as 
that.  And  it  is  necessary  to  teach  your  love  the  latter  first, 
because  from  the  latter  you  may  learn  the  former.  The  baptism 
was  Judaic ;  that  which  takes  away  bodily  defilement;  not  that 
which  takes  away  sins  of  conscience.  For  if  one  should  commit 
adultery,  or  be  guilty  of  theft,  or  should  transgress  in  any  such 
way,  it  would  not  take  away  his  guilt;  but  if  any  one  should 
touch  the  bones  of  the  dead,  if  any  one  should  taste  food  not 
appointed  by  the  law,  if  any  should  be  near  corruption,  if  any 
one  was  in  company  with  lepers,  he  washed  and  was  unclean 
until  evening,  and  then  was  clean.  For  it  is  said,  '  He  shall 
wash  his  body  with  pure  water,  and  shall  be  unclean  till  even- 
ing, and  then  he  shall  be  clean.'  "  (Lev.  15 : 5,  Beqq.)^Chrysosto7n, 
ii,  366. 

Ouoe  pi/V  Tov  d~o  t^-^  xazd  ffu^uylav  zo;'r>jT,  opjnw^  w^  TidXac,  j^arc- 
Ti^etTi'/at  xai  vuv  TzpoffTdffffzi  rj  Otia  did  hupiou  irpwuta  .  .  .  .  tu  TtoXld 
Mwuaiwz  81  ivoq  TTZpikaiiajv  jjaTCTiffparoq. 

"Divine  providence,  through  the  Lord,  does  not  now,  as  for- 
merly, command  to  be  baptized  from  the  conjugal  bed  .  .  .  em- 
bracing, bj^  one  baptism,  the  many  baptisms  of  Moses." — Clemens 
Alex.,  i,  1184. 


170  JUDAIC   BAPTISxM. 


JUDAIC    BAPTISM — BAPTISM    FROM    THE   BED. 

"  For  ichat  baptism  he  comes."  This  statement  implies  a 
diversity  of  nature  iu  baptisms.  Ambrose,  as  we  have  seen, 
expressly  affirms  this:  ^' Malta  sunt  genera  baptismatam," 
There  are  many  kinds  of  baptisms.  Chrysostom  tells  us 
"what  kind"  of  baptism  this  was,  and  says,  that  "the  kind 
of  baptism  "  which  the  Saviour  received,  will  explain  why 
he  received  baptism  at  alL  The  nature  of  some  baptisms 
was  such  as  to  cause  embarrassment  at  the  thought  of  the 
Saviour  receiving  them.  Such  a  baptism  was  that  by  which 
*' sins  of  conscience"  were  taken  away;  and  this  was  the 
baptism  claimed  to  be  administered  in  Chrysostom's  day. 
But  the  Saviour  had  no  such  sins  to  take  away.  How  then 
could  he  receive  this  kind  of  baptism;  and,  if  he  did  not  re- 
ceive this  kind  of  baptism,  what  kind  did  he  receive  ?  Such 
difficulties  and  queries  could  not  but  arise  under  Patristic 
teaching,  and  "the  Golden  Mouth"  Bishop  sets  himself  to 
answer  them.  In  doing  so,  he  declares  that  the  baptism 
which  Christ  received  was  not  Christian  baptism,  nor  Jo- 
liannic  baptism,  nor  Classic  baptism,  but  ^'•Judaic  baptism." 
lie  then  expounds  the  distinguishing  peculiarity  of  this  kind 
of  baptism.  He  does  not  make  the  difference  to  lie  in  dip- 
ping forward,  or  backward,  or  sideways,  or  standing,  or 
kneeling;  nor  yet  in  being  "  wholly  covered"  by  a  sweeping 
torrent,  or  rising  flood,  or  falling  wave.  Fortunately,  or  un- 
fortunately, this  modern  theory  of  diverse  baptism  was  un- 
known to  this  eloquent  and  learned  Grecian.  His  explana- 
tion turns  on  the  different  influences  possessed,  and  the 
different  conditions,  ceremonial  and  spiritual,  induced  by 
the  elements  operative  in  Judaic  and  Patristic  baptism. 
The  former  takes  away  "  bodily  detilement,"  the  latter  takes 
away  "sins  of  conscience." 

"But  we  can  escape  this  difficulty,"  exclaims  the  theorist, 
"When  Ambrose  and  Chrysostom  say  there  are  '■many  kinds 
of  baptisms,'  they  do  not  mean  what  they  say ;  they  mean 
that  there  is  but  one  kind.  They  speak  figuratively  of  dif- 
ferent effects  under  one  cause,  or  the  diversities  of  a  whole 


BAPTISM    FROM    THE    BED.  171 

are  embraced  iu  the  use  of  one  of  its  parts."  But  the  text 
does  not  speak  of  a  dipping  being  in  "the  whole  "  as  a  part. 
"Very  true;  but  we  escape  that  difficulty,  too,  by  'figure.' 
Washing  is  the  requirement,  and  as  dipping  is  one  mode  of 
washing,  and  the  greater  includes  the  lesser,  a  dipping  must 
be  included  iu  the  washing."  Certainly,  the  theory  does  cut 
quite  a  figure  iu  its  exposition,  especially  as  being  received 
on  sufiferance  into  the  home  of  washing,  like  the  pleading 
wolf  into  the  home  of  the  lamb,  it  incontinently  devours  its 
confiding  host. 

After  all,  we  prefer  believing  that  Chrj-sostom  means  what 
he  says,  that  baptisms  difier,  though  dippings  do  not,  and 
that  Judaic  baptism  changes  the  condition  of  the  body  by 
removing  ceremonial  defilement,  while  Patristic  baptism 
was  imagined  to  change  the  condition  of  the  soul,  by  re- 
moving "sins  of  conscience."  The  baptism  of  Christ  was 
(as  taught)  '■^Judaic  baptism." 

As  to  the  manner  of  using  the  water  for  this  washing, 
there  is  no  intimation,  whatever,  of  any  particular  mode. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  word  {Xuuoj)  carries  no  one  mode  with 
it,  nor  do  any  incidental  directions  or  circumstances  point  to 
any  modal  use. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  object  washed  should  be  in  the 
water.  This  has  been  proved.  And  it  is  in  proof,  in  respect 
to  this  particular  washing,  that  neither  the  Septuagint  nor 
Chrysostom  believed  that  the  body  was  required  to  be  dip- 
ped in,  or  put  in  the  water  in  any  way,  for  the  language  they 
employ — Xuuasrat  udaTt. — allows  the  body  to  be  washed  out  of 
the  water  as  well  as  in  the  water,  the  requirement  being  to 
wash  with  water.  This  Judaic  baptism  of  ceremonial  puri- 
fication, no  more  self-evidences  the  quo  modo  of  its  execution 
by  dipping,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  than  does  the  Classic 
baptism  of  intoxication  give  its  own  proof  as  to  the  mode 
in  which  the  wine  was  received — at  one  draught,  by  fre- 
quent sipping,  or  by  sucking  through  a  straw. 

Clement. — The  extract  from  Clement  shoAvs  that  this  was 
one,  only,  of  the  "many  baptisms"  of  Moses.  It  also  ex- 
hibits two  points  irreconcilable  with  the  theory. 


172  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

1.  TliG  fijrcator  power  of  P;i(iis(i(!  over  Judaic  baptism,  and 
2,  The  phraseology,  "  \)U[A\'/a'a\ /mm  the  conjugal  bed." 

A«  to  the  iirnt  of  these  points,  Clement  is  in  accord  willi 
otlier  I'atrists  in  attributing  greater  power  to  Christian  bap- 
tism, over  all  other  baptisms;  but  if  baptism  was  understood 
by  them  to  mean  a  dipi)ing,  no  "  power"  can  be  attributed 
to  one  di[>[)ing  over  any  otlier  dipping.  If  baptism  is  ex- 
pressive of  condition,  then  there  is  fitness  in  saying  that  a 
Jewish  or  Christian  rite  had  more  or  less  power  to  produce 
a  given  effect. 

In  relation  to  the  second  point,  it  is  obvious  that  "dip- 
ping from  "  defilement,  is  not  such  form  of  language  as  we 
would  expect,  while  "to  purify  from,"  harmonizes  with  the 
idea.  Tiiis  form  of  expression  we  have  met  with  before 
under  similar  circumstances — "  baptizing/ro?/?,  a  dead  body" 
— and  we  shall  meet  with  it  again.  Such  established  usage 
can  only  be  satisfactorily  explained  b}'  the  propriety  of  its 
form  to  express  the  nature  of  a  baptism — purification  from 
defilement. 


BAPTISM  IJY  WASHING. 

EzKKiKi-  10:  4,  0. 

"And  as  for  thy  nativity,  in  the  day  thou  wast  horn  .  .  .  thou 
wast  not  washed  in  water.     Then  washed  I  thee  with  water." 

tScp/iK'f/iiiL 
Ka\  Iv  u(luTi  oij/.  Ihionhj^  ....   xai  Ihioad  fft  Iv  uoari  xal  k'/ptffd  tre  iv 

Inicrprcbdion. 

"Crucnta  infantium  corpora,  statiin  at  cmittiintiir  ex  ulero 
lavari  solcnt;  itaet  gencratio  spirituaiis  lavaero  indiget  Hahitari. 
.  .  .  Mullaquc  sunt  lavacra  quie  Ethniei  in  niysleriis  suis  jm)!!!- 
ceutur;  qui  oinries  lavant:  sed  non  hivant  in  salutein.  (^uod 
quidein  non  Hoiuni  do  hiuretieis,  sed  de  Eeelesiiislieis  intelligi 
potest,  qui  non  ])leiia  fido  aceipiunt  l)aptiKmum  salutaro.  Dc- 
quihus  (UeeiKhitu  est,  rjuud  aeeijierint  acpiaiii,  sed  non  aeeiperiut 


BAPTISM    BY   WASHING.  173 

Spiritum ;  sicut  et  Simon  ille  Magus,  qui  pecunia  volebat  rcdimere 

gratiam  Dei,  baptizatus  quidem  in  aqua,  sed  ncquaquam  bap- 

tizatus  est  in  salutem." 

"  (  Verse  9.)  '  Et  lavi  te  aqua  .  .  .  .  et  iinxi  te  oleo.' 

....  "Et  lavi  te,  inquit,  aqua  baptismi  salutaris.  ,  .  .  de  quo 

baptismate  et  Isaias  loquitur,  dicens:  Lavabit  Dominus  sordes 

filiorum  et  filiarum  Sion." — Jerome,  v,  127,  131. 

"The  bodies  of  infants,  stained  with  blood,  are  washed  as  soon 
as  born.  So,  also,  spiritual  birth  needs  the  salutary  washing. 
The  heathen  practise  many  washings  in  their  mysteries;  who 
wash  all;  but  they  do  not  wash  into  salvation.  Which  indeed 
may  be  understood  not  only  of  heretics,  but  of  those  connected 
with  the  church,  who  do  not  receive  with  full  faith  the  salutary 
baptism.  Of  whom  it  may  be  said,  they  receive  the  water,  but 
do  not  receive  the  spirit;  as  also,  Simon,  the  Magician,  who 
wished  to  purchase  the  grace  of  God  with  money,  was  baptized, 
indeed,  with  water,  but  by  no  means,  bajDtized  into  salvation." 

Versed.  "And  I  washed  thee  with  water  ....  and  I  anointed 
thee  with  oil." 

"And  I  washed  thee,"  he  says,  "with  the  water  of  salutary 
baptism.  .  .  .  Concerning  which  baptism,  Isaiah,  also,  speaks : 
The  Lord  will  wash  the  unclean ness  of  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  Zion."— Jerome,  v,  127,  131. 

SPECIAL   POINTS. 

1.  Infant  icashing. — Not  one  new-born  babe  in  a  million 
is  put  under  the  water  in  washing.  But  the  theory  says  : 
"Under  the  water,  baptism;  not  under  the  water,  no  bap- 
tism." 

2.  Washing  is  hapiism.. — N'o  new-born  babe  was  ever  washed 
by  a  simple  dipping  into  or  covering  with  water.  Birth  im- 
purity is  not  thus  cleansed.  Soul  impurity  is  not  to  be 
washed  away  by  a  mere  dipping  into  simple  water.  Wash- 
ing and  baptism  are,  both,  more  than  a  dipping.  Washing 
is  baptism  because  it  is  more  than  a  dipping.  Baptism  is 
washing  because  it  is  more  than  a  dipping.  Dipping  is 
neither  a  washing  nor  a  baptism,  because  it  is  nothing  but 
a  dipping.  Washing  is  more  than  (and  may  be  performed 
without)  either  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  dipping.    Dr.  Fuller 


174  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

(p.  15),  says:  "A  command  to  wash  is  a  command  to  wash, 
and  nothhig  else."     Doubtless  Naaman  thought  so  too. 

3.  Salutary  washing. — That  washing  which  is  more  than  a 
dipping,  yet  no  dipping,  frees  the  new-born  babe  from  its 
impurities,  and  brings  it  into  a  salutary,  healthful  condi- 
tion. That  washing  which  the  Holy  Spirit  effects  through 
power  imparted  to  the  water,  frees  the  soul  from  its  impuri- 
ties and  brings  it  into  a  salutary  condition — one  of  spiritual 
health  and  salvation — baptizes  "  into  salvation."  So  Patrists 
thought. 

4.  Simple  water  cannot  baptize. — Simon  Magus  was  baptized, 
[dipped  Jerome,  probably,  supposed,)  yet  was  not  baptized. 
Just  as  Ambrose  says:  "Baptismata  sunt  gentium,  sed  non 
sunt  baptismata."  It  may  be  called  a  baptism  because 
av^owedly  a  religious  purification;  but  it  was  no  baptism,  in 
fact,  because  no  purification  of  the  soul  took  place,  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  not  being  incorporated  with  the  water. 
He  received  the  water;  he  did  not  receive  the  Spii'it.  N'o 
change  of  condition  took  place.  He  did  not  pass  out  of  a 
state  of  impurity  and  condemnation,  into  a  state  of  purity 
and  salvation  ;  therefore  no  baptism  took  place. 

5.  This  washing  was  with  water  and  not  in  icater. — It  is  true 
that  the  Septuagint  introduces  the  preposition  with  the  da- 
tive; but  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  this  is  done, 
almost  times  without  number,  with  instrumentality  as  well 
as  locality.  That  it  should  be  so  regarded  in  this  passage 
is  shown,  1.  By  the  fact  that  the  preposition  is  omitted  in 
Jerome's  version.  2.  That  the  preposition  is  used  in  the 
same  verse,  by  the  Septuagint  with  "oz7,"  where  inness  is 
out  of  the  question, — "I  anointed  thee  loith,  not  in,  oil."  In 
which  case,  also,  Jerome  omits  the  preposition.  3.  In  de- 
scribing the  use  of  oil,  immediately  after,  he  expresses  the 
mode  of  use,  by  pouring — olci  infusione  linivit.  The  use  of 
water,  in  the  same  baptism,  both  as  instrumental  means  and 
receiving  element,  is  as  impossible  as  to  use  wine  at  the 
same  time  'for  baptizing  one  by  making  him  drunk  by  drink- 
ing, and  for  drowning  by  putting  him  in  it.  The  theory 
can  find  neither  aid  nor  comfort  in  this  washing. 


BAPTISM   BY   WASHING   THE   HANDS    AND    FEET.  175 


BAPTISM  BY  WASHING  THE  HANDS  AND  FEET. 

Exodus  40 :  30-33. 
(Exodus  29:4;  30:18-20.)  (Numb.  8:5;  19:20.) 

"And  he  set  the  laver  between  the  tent  of  the  congregation 
and  the  altar,  and  put  water  there  to  wash  withal. 

"And  Moses  and  Aaron  and  his  sons  washed  their  hands  and 
their  feet  thereat. 

"When  they  went  into  the  tent  of  the  congregation,  and  when 
they  came  near  unto  the  altar  they  washed;  as  the  Lord  com- 
manded Moses." 

Septuagint. 

UoLTjiTov  XouTj/pa  'j^aXxouv — wars  vinrecrSat — xai  ix^el-;  ei^  auTov  68mp. 
KaX  viil'ZTat.  \iapcov  xai  vl  ulu\  auTou  ^?  aoruu  zdq  ^sipa-;,  xai  zuu^  Tzoda^ 
'udazi.  (Ex.  30  :  18,  19.) 

....  xa\  Xuuffetq  auruug  uSarc.    (Ex.  40  :  12.) 

Intcriwetation. 

lIpaJTOv  6  apytzpthq  Xousrat,  fira  Su/icd  ....  ;raic  yd.p  iveywpti  ^rwv 
d.).Xiov  VTZspsoysaSai  \  rov  dC  u8aTo<^  outzu)  xexaSapiapivov ;  xai  auiifioXov 
exitzo  ToD  ^aTzriffiiaroq^  X.uurijp  e'^dov  OLTZoxsi/jLsvoq  zT^q  axr^vT^q, 

"  The  high  priest  first  washes,  then  sacrifices ;  for  Aaron  was 
first  washed,  then  became  high  priest.  For  how  could  be  be 
permitted  to  pray  for  others  who  was  not  first  cleansed  by 
water?  And  the  laver  placed  within  the  tent  was  a  symbol  of 
baptism." — Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  433. 

"Interanea  sane  cum  pedibus  aqua  dilui  jubet  sermo  prtecepti, 
sacramentum  baptismi  sub  figurali  prffidicatione  denuntians. 

"  Igitur  sacrificium,  pro  quo  hffic  omnia  sacrificia  in  typo  et 
figura  praecesserant,  unum  et  perfectum,  immolatus  est  Christus." 

"  The  word  of  the  precept,  truly,  with  the  feet,  orders  the 
washing  with  internal  water,  announcing,  figuratively,  the  sac- 
rament of  baptism. 

"Therefore  Christ  was  sacrificed,  the  one  perfect  sacrifice,  for 
which  all  these  sacrifices  in  type  and  figure  went  before." — OrU 
gen,  ii,  410,  442. 


176  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

'Ayvtia  oh  ktJTt  ^pnvt'.v  offca'  xai  Srj  xai  rj  ehwv  too  jSaTTZCffjiaTO^  efjj  dv 
xai  ij  ex  Mivoffiiuq  7zapadsdofii>7j  to'k;  TzotTjTaTq  wui  tto/c- 

'//  5'  udptvajxivT)  xa6apa.  ypm  "fxara  iy(ouffa, 
'11  rieve/.oTZTj  izl  ~r,v  iuyjf^  spyerac. 

Trj/.iiiayoi:  di, 

'E6o^  TouTO  ^loudatcuVj  wg  xdi  ~u  izuXXaxiq  i~\  xotrr/  (jaTzri'^sffSai. 
£5  youv  xdxeJvo  efpTjrar 

"/(tSc  p.rj  Xuurpoj,  cO.Xd  '^oip  xaSapor^, 

Clem.  Alex.,  i,  1352. 

"  Purity  is  to  think  purely.     An  image  of  this  baptism  was 
communicated  to  the  poets,  from  Moses,  thus — 
'  Having  washed,  and  being  clothed  with  clean  vestments, 
Penelope  comes  to  prayer.' 

'But  Telemachus, 

Having  washed  his  hands  of  the  hoary  sea,  prays  to  Minerva.' 

"This  is  a  custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize  often  upon  the 
couch.     Therefore,  it  is  well  said, 

'  Be  pure,  not  by  washing,  but  by  thinking.'  " 

Clemens  Alex.,  i,  1352. 

BAPTISM    OF   THE    WHOLE    BODY   BY   WASHING   A    PART. 

Washing. — Dr.  Carson  insists  that  if  these  washings  are 
called  baptisms,  they  must  have  been  "immersions."  At 
the  same  time  he  says,  "That  the  word  {Xuvw)  does  not  neces- 
sarily express  mode,  I  readily  admit.  This  must  be  deter- 
mined by  circumstances.  All  I  contend  for  from  this  word 
is,  that  the  object  to  which  it  is  applied  is  covered  with  the 
water.  The  a})[)lication  of  this  word  to  baptism  shows  that 
the  rite  was  a  bathing  of  the  whole  body;  and  as  immersion 
is  the  usual  way  of  bathing,  baptism  must  have  been  an 
immersion."  (p.  48G.)  Dr.  C.  here  distinguishes  between 
"bathing"  and  "immersion,"  yet  insists  that  in  either  case, 
equally,  the  object  bathed  or  immersed  shall  be  "covered 
with  the  water."  There  is  such  a  careless  and  groundless 
mixing  up  of  important  words,  having  essentially  diverse 


WASHING   THE   HANDS    BAPTIZES   THE   BODY.  177 

meanings,  by  this  writer,  that  one  cannot  tell  what  he  means. 
Does  he  mean  that  an  object  not  in  water,  but  rubbed  by  a 
wetted  hand  or  cloth,  is  "bathed,"  "covered  with  water?" 
He  speaks  of  the  wounded  thigh  of  Adonis  being  bathed, 
covered  with  water.  If  he  was  not  "immersed,"  which  is 
not  said,  how  else  could  his  wounded  thigh  have  been 
"  bathed"  but  by  rubbing  with  the  hand?  So,  unquestion- 
ably, the  stripes  of  Paul  and  Silas  were  washed — bathed. 
But  if  this  is  the  "covering  with  water"  which  Dr.  C.  con- 
tends for,  what  becomes  of  his  conclusion  of  immersion-dip- 
ping when  this  Greek  word  is  used  ? 

The  fullest  proof  has  been  adduced  to  show  thiit  Xouw,  lavo, 
wash,  bathe,  do  not  require  tlieir  objects  to  be  in  the  water. 
And  as  to  the  mode  of  applying  the  water,  Carson  (p.  493) 
admits — "the  water  might  be  applied  by  sprinkling,  or  by 
pouring,  or  in  any  way."  Tertullian  speaks  of  one  as  ex- 
posed "  lavacro  Jovis,"  to  "the  washing  of  Jupiter,"  effected 
"  imbribus  et  pluviis,"  by  "  showers  and  rains."  Would  this 
meet  the  idea  of  "bathing  and  covering  with  water?"  A 
line  of  poetry  reads,  "  The  rose  had  been  washed,  just  washed 
in  a  shoicer ;"  is  this  washing,  bathing,  covering,  by  sprink- 
linfj?  If  this  is  his  meaning,  I  do  not  know  who  will  find 
much  fault,  unless  it  be  the  friends  of  the  theory.  And  with 
this  meaning,  what  becomes  of  the  logic  which  infers  these 
washings  into  immersions?  And  why  is  not  Calvin  (Harm, 
of  Pent,  ii,  210)  justified,  not  merely  by  the  merits  of  the 
case,  but  by  Carson  himself,  in  saying, — "  Moses,  before  he 
consecrates  the  priests,  ivashes  them  bi/  the  sprbildlng  of 
water?"  Carson  says,  (p.  471,)  "A  purification  performed 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water,  would  not  be 
a  loiitron."  This  statement  overlooked  the  truth  that  religi- 
ous purification  does  not  depend  for  its  extent  on  the  extent 
of  the  application  of  the  purifying  element.  The  purifica- 
tion eflpected  may  embrace  the  entire  person,  although  but  a 
few  drops  of  the  purifying  element  may  fall  on  the  body.  It 
is  to  this  complete  purification  that  the  term  Xourjtw,  washing, 
is  applied. 

Thus  Chrysostom  speaks  of  martyrs  "washed  (jMuo-^TaC)  by 
12 


178  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

their  own  blood."  And  Origen  speaks  of  being  "washed 
(loti)  by  our  own  blood."  Blood,  of  itself,  has  no  "wash- 
ing" quality;  It  defiles.  It  is  not  used,  here,  for  \vashing 
physically  any  part.  Sacrificial  blood  cleanses  the  whole  of 
that  to  which  it  is  applied,  irrespective  of  the  extent  of  its 
application.  This  was  martyr  blood,  and  it  washed  the  whole 
man — body  and  soul — though  applied  but  in  sprinkled  drops. 
It  is  to  this  universal  cleansing,  this  condition  of  purity,  to 
which  loorpov  is  applied,  and  applied  without  any  possibility 
of  just  questioning.  And  Calvin  is  right  in  saying,  (ii,  p. 
186,)  "The  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet  denoted  that  all 
parts  of  the  body  were  infected  with  uncleanness;  for  since 
Scripture  often  uses  the  word  'hands'  for  the  actions  of  life, 
and  compares  the  whole  course  of  life  to  a  w^ay  or  journey, 
it  is  very  suitable  to  say,  by  synecdoche,  that  all  impurity  is 
purged  away  by  the  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet." 

Dr.  Carson's  plea  for  immersions  because  of  washings, 
(baptisms,)  is  all  in  the  air. 

The  brazen  laver. — This  laver,  Cyril  tells  us,  was  "the  sym- 
bol of  baptism."  It  was  not  the  symbol  of  dipping.  Aaron 
and  his  sons  did  not  wash  in  this  vessel.  Would  not  a  com- 
mand for  several  persons  to  wash  their  hands  and  feet  in  the 
same  vessel,  be,  at  any  time,  incredible?  Would  it  not  be 
pre-eminently  incredible,  that  after  one  had  washed  his  feet 
in  a  vessel  of  water,  another  should  be  required  to  wash  his 
hands  in  the  same  vessel  for  a  religious  purification  ?  But  we 
are  not  left  to  reject,  by  inference,  this  singular  conception; 
we  are  most  distinctly  told  that  the  water  was  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  laver — tc  duruu—udan — "  wash  with  water  out  of  it." 
But  Br.  Carson  would  immerse  the,  priests  in  the  brazen  sea, 
(p.  444,)—"  Such  things  as  they  offered  for  burnt  oft'ering, 
they  washed  in  them;  Out  the  sea  was  for  the  priests  to  irash  in. 
Are  not  these  immersions?  Are  not  these  different  immer- 
sions even  in  the  temple?"  That  is  to  say,  he  would  make 
the  priests  climb  up  over  these  "twelve  oxen,"  and  then  climb 
up  five  cubits  higher,  and  plunge  into  twenty  thousand  gal- 
lons of  water  to  wash !  How  many  times  a  day  this  was 
done;  or,  how  many  this  water  purified  before  it  became 


WASHING   THE    HANDS    BAPTIZES   THE   BODY.  179 

impure,  and  had  to  be  drawn  off,  and  supplied  with  twenty 
thousand  gallons  of  fresh  water,  we  are  not  told. 

The  theory  needs  a  courageous  advocate-,  and  it  has  one 
in  Dr.  Carson.    But  "  the  sea"  will  not  serve  for  immersion. 

The  Hebrew  uses  two  words  (neither  of  modal  act)  to  ex- 
press these  laver  and  sea  washings.  The  Scptuagint  em- 
ploys three  words — t.Iwio^  ■ns.pv/lb'^m^  vinrw — the  last  (applied  to 
hand  SiwAfeet  washings)  denoting  the  washing  of  the  priests. 
Thus,  the  highest  testimony,  that  of  Jews  who  had  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts,  denies  an  immersion  in  the  "  sea." 

Baptism  in  Figure. — "When  Cyril  speaks  of  the  laver,  at 
which  the  hands  and  feet  were  washed,  as  "  a  symbol  of 
baptism;"  and  when  Origen  speaks  of  feet-washing  as  "bap- 
tism in  figure ;"  and  when  Clement  speaks  of  the  washing 
of  hands  as  an  "image  of  baptism,"  they  all  mean  to  declare 
that  these  washings  were  baptisms,  without  ?Li\y  regard  to 
the  modal  action  by  which  the  washing  was  effected.  There 
is  no  hint  as  to  the  manner  of  the  washing.  It  is  said, 
(by  the  use  of  ^^  with  the  genitive,  and  by  the  use  of  o8ari 
without  a  preposition,)  that  the  water  was  used  as  a  means  to 
efi'ect  the  baptism,  and  not  as  an  element  to  receive  an  ob- 
ject put  into  it.  The  baptism  effected  was  one  in  fact,  and 
not  of  mere  imagination.  It  was  not  the  absurdity  of  a 
physical  baptism  of  a  hand  or  a  foot.  How  would:  such  a 
baptism  fit  the  priest  for  his  duties?  It  is  not  his  hands  or 
his  feet  that  he  needs  to  be  made  pure,  but  his  entire  per- 
son. And  this  is  accomplished  by  applying  water,  merely, 
to  the  hands  and  feet.  This  baptizes  the  whole  person; 
brings  the  whole  man  into  a  condition  of  ceremonial  purity, 
which  is  the  baptism.  This  change  of  condition,  from  im- 
purity into  purity,  is  a  fact,  as  truly  as  is  the  change  of  con- 
dition in  a  mass  of  lead  passing  from  the  atmosphere  into 
the  depths  of  the  sea.  This  change,  in  the  ceremonial  con- 
dition of  the  'whole  man,  by  the  local  application  of  water, 
is  called  symbol  of,  figure  of,  image  of,  baptism,  becau.se  it 
is  a  baptism  which  resembles  some  other  baptism,  and  is  in- 
tended so  to  resemble  it. 

As  these  symbols,  figures,  images,  are  connected  with  a 


180  JUDAIC   BAPTISiAI. 

great  variety  of  modes  in  the  use  of  the  agency  in  the  bap- 
tism— water,  blood,  ashes,  &c. — it  is  important  to  establish 
the  fact  that,  under  all  these  forms,  they  are  not  merely 
called,  for  some  known  or  unknown  reason,  but  truly  are 
bona  fide  baptisms.  For  this  purpose  I  call  attention  to  the 
use  of  the  same  terms,  "type  and  figure,"  in  the  extract 
from  Origen,  in  reference  to  sacrifices  which  preceded  "the 
one  and  perfect  sacrifice."  Although  these  sacrifices  difi'ered 
greatly  among  themselves,  and  still  more  from  the  "  perfect 
sacrifice,"  still,  they  agreed  generically  among  themselves, 
and  in  their  resemblance  to  "  the  one  sacrifice,"  in  this, 
namely:  that,  in  every  case,  there  was  a  substitutionary 
victim.  With  great  variety  in  the  victims,  and  in  the  modal 
arrangements,  they  were  all  true  sacrifices,  "typitying  and 
figuring"  one  which  was  like,  and  infinitely  unlike.  These 
baptisms,  amid  diversity  of  object  and  modal  execution, 
were  as  real  baptisms  as  these  sacrifices  were  real.  As  Ori- 
gen says,  there  Avere  many  sacrifices,  yet  only  "one  sacri- 
fice." So  Ambrose  says  :  "Multa  sunt  genera  baptismatum 
sed  unum  baptisma."  Let  no  one  suppose  that  the  terms 
"symbol,  figure,  image,"  detract,  in  any  wise,  from  the  sub- 
stantive character  of  these  baptisms. 

Jewish  Custom. — Clement  had  been  engaged  in  a  discussion 
designed  to  enforce  the  great  superiority  of  mental  purit}' — 
right  thinking — over  ceremonial  purity,  water- washing.  This 
leads  him  to  speak  of  baptism,  water-washing,  as  practised 
by  Jew  and  Gentile.  He  supposes  that  the  heathen  poets 
ma}^  have  received  "the  image  of  baptism"  from  Moses. 
Among  the  baptisms  enjoined  by  Moses,  he  appears  to  have 
had  especially  in  mind  the  washing  of  hands,  as  he  quotes 
a  case  of  this  kind  as  practised  by  Telemachus;  and  also 
refers  to  the  Jewish  custom  of  washing  hands  at  meals, 
"upon  the  couch."  And  in  view  of  this  widespread  water- 
washing,  and  its  ceremonial  purity,  presses,  again,  the  great 
superiority  of  a  pure  mind  over  a  ceremonial  washing.  To 
fasten  this  truth  in  the  mind,  is  his  single  and  earnest  pur- 
pose. 

Inasmuch  as  dipping  into  water,  or  covering  over  with 


WASHING   THE   HANDS   BAPTIZES   THE   BODY.  181 

water — one  reclining  upon  a  clining-couch — would  be  both 
untimely  and  embarrassing,  Baptist  writers  have  sought  to 
introduce  quite  another  scene.  Thus  Dr.  Carson  (p.  492) 
says:  "The  passage  refers  to  the  nightlj'^  pollutions,  after 
which  bathing  was  prescribed  by  the  law  of  Moses.  They 
were  immersed  on  accout  of  the  bed ;  that  is,  pollutions  con- 
tracted there."  (Levit.  15  :  16-48.) 

This  is  only  another  of  those  extravagances  of  interpreta- 
tion, constantly  exhibited  in  the  attempt  to  sustain  a  ground- 
less theor}^  by  cutting  off  and  stretching  out  the  facts  of 
usage. 

The  interpretation  is  extravagant,  1.  Because  there  is  not 
a  single  point  of  contact  between  it  and  the  context.  There 
is  neither  statement  of,  nor  hint  at,  sexual  intercourse,  in 
the  remarks  of  Clement.  Such  conception  cannot  be  made 
to  mingle  with  the  train  of  thought,  any  more  than  oil  with 
water.  It  is  an  alien  thing.  2.  It  is  ridiculously  absurd  to 
suppose  that  "the  poets"  would  learn  "the  image  of  bap- 
tism "  from  post-concubital  washings  !  3.  It  is  a  gross  im- 
peachment of  Clement,  to  suppose  that  he  would  place,  in 
juxtaposition,  the  purifications  for  prayer  by  Penelope  and 
Telemachus,  with  sexual  uncleanness.  4.  It  is  an  extrava- 
gance, most  extravagant,  to  suppose  that,  out  of  the  multi- 
plied washings  of  the  Jews,  Clement  would  select  a  washing 
of  this  class,  to  hold  it  up  before  the  world  as  illustrative  of 
Jewish  "  custom." 

What  is  the  ground  on  which  this  interpretation  is  based? 

1.  The  assumption  that  xoirr;  must  mean  a  sleeping  couch. 

2.  The  assumption  that  reference  is  made  to  Leviticus  15  : 
16-18,  and  its  remarkable  washing.  3.  The  assumption 
that  this  washing  was  by  "immersion."  4.  The  assumption 
that  i-^^  has  an  unusual  meaning.  Not  one  of  these  assump- 
tions has  been  proved,  or  can  be  proved.  As  to  the  first,  it 
is  disproved  by  President  Beecher,  most  conclusively: — 
"Xenophon,  in  his  Memorabilia,  authorizes  the  usage  (din- 
ner-couch). Speaking  of  the  marks  of  honor  due  from  the 
younger  to  the  elder,  he  mentions  '  rising  up  in  their  pres- 
ence, honoring  them  with  a  soft  couch — xohr]  fj.a?.axfj — and 


182  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

giving  them  the  precedence  in  speech.'  This  interpretation 
is  sustained  by  Struzius,  in  his  Lexicon  Xenophonteum,  who 
describes  it  as  'lectus  quietis  et  convivii,'  a  couch  of  repose 
and  feasting.  Morell,  in  his  Lexicon  Prosodaicum,  gives 
zA/v5j  and  y-inrt)  as  synonyms." 

The  comment  of  Ilervetus,  a  translator  of  Clement,  on 
this  passage,  is:  "  The  Jews  washed  themselves,  not  only  at 
sacrifices,  but  also  at  feasts,  and  this  is  the  reason  wh}'  Clem- 
ent says  that  they  were  pnrified  or  washed  upon  a  couch, 
that  is,  a  dining-couch  or  triclinium.  To  this  Mark  refers, 
ch.  vii,  and  Matt.,  ch.  xv;  Tertullian  also  refers  to  it  when 
he  says,  Judseus  Israel  quotidie  lavat." 

The  second  assumption  is  sufficiently  refuted  when  con- 
fronted with  the  passage.  We  may  add,  however,  additional 
disproof,  taken  from  Clement  himself.  He  does  refer  to  the 
washing  in  Levit.  15,  in  i,  1184,  but  in  very  different  terms: 

a-u  r>7?  y.ara.  GU^uyiav  /.olrr^q — ^a-ri'^eaeat.    Xow,  can  any  one,  when 

Clement  has  described  this  baptism  in  such  unmistakable 
terms,  claim  a  right  to  confound  with  it  a  baptism  described 
in  terms  so  diverse,  and  belonging  to  such  diverse  circum- 
stances? The  diversity  of  these  passages  does  not  consist 
merely,  or  mainl}^,  in  the  presence  of  cu'iuyia'^^  in  the  one  case, 
and  in  its  absence  in  the  other,  but  in  the  presence  of  a-o  in 
the  first  passage,  and  the  use  of  l-\  in  the  latter.  The  use 
of  a-o,  with  the  noun  indicating  the  source  of  defilement, 
from  which  cleansing  has  been  efiected,  is  established  usage; 
thus,  we  have  "  baptized  from  (a-o)  a  dead  body,"  "  from 
{a-o)  the  market,"  "from  [ano)  an  evil  conscience."  The  use 
of  1-1,  under  such  circumstances,  is  unheard  of.  If,  then, 
Gu'^uylav  might  be  omitted,  o-o  would,  in  its  absence,  be  most 
imperatively  required  to  be  retained,  in  a  reference  to  the 
baptism  contemplated.  Its  absence,  alone,  is  disproof  of 
the  assumed  reference. 

The  third  assumption  has  been  met  with  so  frequently, 
heretofore,  and  is  in  such  constant  denumd  as  a  staft"  on 
which  the  theory  may  lean,  that  no,  present,  formal  dis- 
proof is  needed. 

The  fourth  assumption  is  dismissed  by  the  truth,  that  no 


WASHING   THE   HANDS   BAPTIZES   THE   BODY.  183 

unusual  meaning  can  take  the  place  of  a  usual  meaning, 
when  that  meaning  fully  meets  the  exigencies  of  the  case. 
The  usual  meaning  meets  all  the  demands  of  the  present 
passage,  most  perfectlj-.  It  is  in  proof,  that  the  washing  of 
hands  constituted  a  haptisra  of  the  entire  person.  It  is  in 
proof,  that  the  washing  of  hands  did  take  place,  for  the  pu- 
rification of  the  person,  at  meals.  It  is,  therefore,  in  proof, 
that  baptisms  might  take  place,  as  Clement  affirms,  "  iqjon 
the  couch."  And,  this  being  in  proof,  the  theory  is  again 
disproved,  for  \iix\\di-di2yping ,  as  a  door  of  retreat,  is  both 
locked  and  bolted.  The  hands  were  no  more  defiled  than 
any  other  part  of  the  body,  and  if  the  purifying  influence  of 
the  water  extended  no  farther  than  its  physical  application, 
then  the  man,  hands  excepted,  remained  in  all  his  impurity. 
But  the  man  was  purified,  and  consequently  the  purifying 
influence  of  the  water  extended  beyond  its  application. 
"Wine,  drank,  does  not  baptize — make  drunk — merely  the 
mouth,  and  throat,  and  stoma<?h,  which  the  liquid  touches, 
but  the  whole  man,  from  head  to  foot.  So,  purifying  water 
does  not  merely  baptize — make  2nire — the  hands  and  the 
feet,  with  which  it  comes  into  contact,  but  the  entire  person, 
reached  through  these  members  of  the  body.  "When  we 
meet  with  a  heathen  or  a  Jew,  who  believes  that  that  part 
only  of  the  body  is  baptized  to  which  the  water  or  the  ashes 
is  applied,  we  will  listen  to  a  hand-baptism  as  being  some- 
thing else  than  a  baptism  of  the  entire  person.  Hand-wash- 
ing, "  iqwn  the  couch,"  however  etfected,  was  no  dipping  of 
the  person  into  water,  but  it  was  a  baptism  of  the  entire  man. 
There  is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  Clement,  instead  of 
referring  to  Leviticus  15,  had  his  eye  on  Mark  7  :  2,  3.  In 
addition  to  general  considerations,  very  strong  special  evi- 
dence for  this  may  be  found  in  the  use  of  7:oUdxi<;.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  use  of  ^oyri^,  in  Mark,  has  been  a  cause  of 
embarrassment  to  translators.  The  Vulgate,  Luther,  and 
the  English  Bible,  translate  ^^ frequently ,''  "many  times," 
"  often,"  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  Clement  obtained  his 
"frequently"  from  the  same  source.  Certainly  the  word 
has  thus  a  reason  for  its  use,  while,  on  the  Baptist  hypothe- 


184  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

sis,  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  is  a  ver}'  remarkable  ad- 
dendum. 

Alex,  D.  Le  Nourrj  (Dissert,  ii,  in  Clementcm)  makes 
the  following  remark  on  the  passage  under  consideration: 
"Xostri  porro  sacri  baptismatis  imaginem  uon  solum  apud 
Judiieos,  sed  etiam  Gentiles  fuisse  Clemens  uoster  ostendit. 
Et  apud  Gentiles  quidem  in  eo,  quod  de  Penelope  et  Tele- 
macho  cecinit  Homerus  Odyss.  A'  et  J'.  Apud  Judaeos 
autem,  quia  ijios  eorum  erat,  ut  scepe  in  lecto  tingerentur.  Sed 
scite  Clemens  monet  hsec  plane  imperfecta  fuisse  baptismata 
quandoquidem  nou  lavacro,  sed  animo  mundi  purique  esse 
debemus." 

On  this  passage  we  may  ask:  1.  Can  the  irrationality  of 
theory  go  beyond  the  making  washing  j)ost  concub'dum,  the 
image  '^?ws(ri  sacri  bajyiismatis?"  2.  When  the  theory  insists 
that  tingo,  used  with  baptism,  proves  a  dipping,  how  does  it 
manage  to  efiect  a  dipping  " in  lecto?"    . 

Clement,  a  native  of  Athens,  knew  somewhat  of  Greek, 
but  clearly  he  knew  nothing  of  the  dipping  theory. 


BAPTISM  BY  SPRINKLING. 

Leviticus  14 :  4-7. 

"Then  shall  the  priest  command  to  take  for  him  that  is  to  bo 
cleansed,  two  birds  alive  and  clean,  aud  cedar  wood,  and  scarlet, 
and  hyssop : 

"And  the  priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the  birds  be  killed 
in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  water. 

"As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood, 
and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip  them  and  the  living 
bird  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the  running 
water : 

"And  he  shall  sprinkle  upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from 
the  leprosy  seven  times,  and  shall  pronounce  him  clean,  and 
shall  let  the  living  bird  loose  in  the  field." 

Sepiuagint. 

Ka\  T.zoif,pavtt  i-\  Tov  xuSapiaSivTa  drtd  rr^q  XiTZfjaq  i-zdnz  y.a\  xaSapo': 


BAPTISM    BY   SPRINKLING.  185 

Interpretation. 

.  .  .  .  "  Et  intingens  passerem  vivum  in  aqnas,  in  qnibus  san- 
guinem  immolati  passeris  decuri'ere  fecerat,  cum  ligno  cedrino, 
lana  coccinea,  et  byssopo  aspergeret  septies  leprosum,  et  tunc 
rite  mundaretur.  .  .  .  Per  lignum  vero  cedrinum  Pater,  per 
hyssoiDum  Filius  ;  per  lanam  autem  coccineam,  qute  fulgorem 
ignis  habet,  Spii'itus  sanctus  designatur.  lis  tribus,  qui  rite 
mundari  volebat,  aspergebatur;  quia  nullus  per  aquam  baptis- 
matis  a  lepra  peccatorum  mundari  potest,  nisi  sub  invocatione 
Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  sancti.  .  .  .  Nosque  a  peccatis  nostris, 
qui  per  leprosum  designamur,  per  eorum  invocationem,  et  per 
aquam  baptismatis  abluit." 

"  The  Lord  also  commanded  Moses  that  if  any  leprous  person 
would  be  cleansed,  he  should  come  to  the  priest  and  offer  two 
sparrows  to  the  priest.  Of  which  he  killing  one  should  make 
its  blood  flow  into  living  water,  and  dii)ping  the  living  sparrow 
into  the  water  in  which  he  had  made  the  blood  of  the  slain 
sparrow  to  flow,  with  cedar  wood,  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  he 
should  sprinkle  seven  times  the  leprous  person,  and  then  he 
would  be  properly  cleansed.  .  .  . 

"But  by  the  cedar  wood  the  Father,  by  the  hyssop  the  Son, 
but  by  the  scarlet  wool,  which  has  the  brightness  of  fire,  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  designated.  Whoever  wished  to  be  cleansed  in 
pi'oper  form  was  sprinkled  by  these  three;  becaiise  no  one  can 
be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  of  sin  by  the  water  of  baptism,  ex- 
cept under  the  invocation  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Hol}^  Ghost.  .  .  .  And  he  cleanses  us,  who  are  designated 
by  the  leper,  by  their  invocation  and  by  the  water  o-f  baptism." 
— Ambrose,  iv,  829. 

BAPTISM    BY    SPRINKLING. 

Ambrose,  here,  draws  out  in  minute  detail  the  points  of 
resemblance  between  the  figure  baptism  and  the  figured 
baptism. 

The  resemblances  are  1.  The  leper  and  the  sinner.  2. 
Leprosy  and  sin.  3.  The  mingled  water  and  blood,  and  the 
water  of  baptism.  4.  The  cedar  wood,  the  hyssop,  and  the 
scarlet  wool,  designating  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 


186  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

5.  The  removal  of  the  leprosy  and  the  purification  of  the 
soul  from  sin. 

"Where  tliese  elements  Avere  present,  the  cleansing,  the 
baptism,  was  duly  performed.  But  the  theory  cries  out, 
"Stop,  where  is  the  dipjring?"  Alas,  here  as  everywhere 
else,  it  is  lacking.  The  fact  is  that  all  through  the  Patristic 
interpretations  of  Jewish  baptisms,  it  is  written  in  characters 
80  plain,  that  "a  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err 
therein,"  that  a  dipping  or  a  covering  with  water  never 
enters  into  their  thoughts  as  a  requisite  for  ba})tism. 

And  this,  not  because  they  did  not  know  that  y5a-rj:w  had 
power  to  effect  a  physical  intusposition  unlimited  by  form 
of  act,  or  time  of  duration,  thus  essentially  changing  the 
condition  of  its  object;  but  because  they  knew  this  well,  and 
because  they  knew  more,  namelj',  that  this  word  was  able 
to  throw  aside  this  limited  application  to  a  condition  of 
physical  investment,  and  to  advance  into  a  broader  and  nobler 
field,  indicative  of  thorough  change  of  condition  under  any 
competent  influence.  This  places  the  Patrists  in  full  accord 
wnth  the  Classics,  and  expounds  with  the  most  entire  facility, 
all  their  language.  These  Jewish  baptisms  have  nothing  to 
do  with  physical  investments.  They  belong  to  baptisms 
whose  change  of  condition  is  due  to  influences  which  do  not 
invest  externally,  but  pervade  internally.  Hence  this  bap- 
tism was  by  sprinkling,  and  it  operated  as  an  agency  con- 
trolling the  condition  of  the  sprinkled  object;  as  Ambrose 
says,  "by  {jkt)  the  water  of  baptism."  Ambrose  believed 
in  baptism  by  sprinkling,  though  not  in  dipping  by  sprinkling. 


BAPTISM  BY  WASHING  AND  SPRINKLING. 
Psalm  51 :  2,  7. 

"  Wash  me  tlioroughly  from  my  uiiquity,  and  cleanse  me  from 
my  sin. 

"  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  he  clean  :  wash  mc,  and 
I  shull  be  whiter  than  snow." 


BAPTISM   BY   WASHING   AND   SPRINKLING.  187 

Septuagint. 

^ E~i~Xe1ov  ~Xw6v  fit  a~b  ~7^q  dvu/j.ca^  l^-oOy  xai  a~u  r^c  aiiapna'  jiou 
xaMpttTdv  /jLi. 

'Pa'/Ttsi';  fj.£  6ff(jd)~u}  xui  xa6apc<76rj(To/jLac,  TrXwet-;  fJL£  xai  uitkp  '^wva  Xeuxdv 
Brj^ofxac.   (Ps.  50  : 4,  9.) 

Ijiterpretation. 

"  Eenovamur  enim  per  lavncri  I'egenerationem ;  renovaram* 
per  Spiritus  sancti  effusionem  ;  renovamur  etiam  per  resurrec- 
tionem.  .  .  .  Qiiomodo  renovemur,  audi :  Asperges  me  hyssopo, 
et  mundabor.  (Ps.  50 : 9.)  .  .  .  Eecte  renovatur  qui  de  tenebris 
peccatorum  in  lucem  virtutum  mutatur  et  gratiam. — Ambrose^  i, 
827. 

"  Nou  tarn  seepius  quam  plenius  lavari  petit,  ut  conceptam 
sordem  possit  eluere,  JS'overat  secundum  legem  pleraque  mun- 
dandi  esse  subsidia,  sed  nullum  plenum  et  perfectum.  Ad  illud 
ergo  perfectum  tota  intentione  festinat,  quo  justitia  omnis  im- 
pletur,  quod  est  baptismatis  sacramentum,  sicut  ipse  docet  Dom- 
inus  Jesus  (Matt.  3 :  15).  i,  867. 

"Qui  enim  baptizatur,  et  secundum  Legem  et  secundum  Evan- 
gelium  videtur  esse  mundatus;  secundum  legem,  quia  hj'ssopi 
fasciculo  Moyses  aspergebat  sanguinem  agni :  secundum  Evan- 
gelium,  quia  Christi  erant  Candida  vestimenta  sicut  nix,  cum 
resurrectionis  suas  gloriam  in  Evangelio  demonstraret.  Super 
nivem  ergo  dealbitur  cui  culpa  dimittitur,  (iii,  399.) 

"Per  hyssopi  fosciculum  aspergebatur  agni  sanguine  qui  mun- 
dari  volebat  tj^pico  baptismate." — Ambrose,  i,  875. 

—  did  Tdh^  iiiXlovraq  baaui-iu  (^a'^rt^etrSac,  xai  xaiapt'^saSat  vaffchrzu)  zu) 
voYj-uj  rfj  du>d/iti  rou  xard  zu  TzdSoq  oaffw-io  xai  xa2d/iu)  ~o-i<j6ivToq. —  Cyril, 

425.' 

Ba~T'.f76u>/iey  oiv,  Iva  vrArjcTCD/isv  iitrdayioiiev  xaSapaicjv  udarcuv,  (xraw-oo 
(jonruwripiov^  ac/JLuroq  vo/icxod  xaSapwripajv,  anodou  da/iaAsajt;  Upwrspujv 
/JavTJ C«U(7ij?  Tohq  xexotvwpivouq,  xai  Tzpoaxatpov  iyoumjq  awpaToq  xAiapatv, 
ou  r.a'^TzXr,  r^?  u/xaprtaq  dvaipsffiv. —  Gregory  Nazianzen,  372. 

"We  are  renewed  by  the  regeneration  of  washing;  we  are 
renewed  by  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  we  ai-e  renewed, 
also,  by  the  resurrection.  IIow  we  must  bo  renewed,  hear : 
'Thou  shalt  sprinkle  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean.' 


188  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

He  is  rightly  renewed  who  is  changed  from  the  darkness  of  sin 
into  the  light  of  virtue  and  grace." — Ambrose^  i,  827. 

"  He  does  not  desire  so  much  to  be  washed  frequently  as  thor- 
oughl}^  that  contracted  defilement  may.be  washed  away.  He 
knew  that,  according  to  the  law,  there  were  many  means  of 
cleansing,  but  none  full  and  perfect.  To  that  perfect  one,  there- 
fore, he  hastens  with  full  purpose,  by  which  all  righteousness 
may  be  fulfilled,  which  is  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  as  the  Lord 
Jesus  himself  testifies  (Matt.  8: 15)."  i,  8G7. 

"  He  who  wished  to  be  cleansed  by  typical  baptism,  was 
sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  lamb  by  a  bunch  of  hyssop?' 
i,  875. 

"  He  who  is  baptized,  whether  in  conformity  with  the  Law 
or  in  conformity  with  the  Gospel,  is  cleansed ;  in  conformity 
with  the  Law,  because  Moses  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  lamb 
with  a  bunch  of  hyssop."  ....  iii,  399. 

"Eejoice,  O  heavens,  and  be  glad,  O  earth,  because  of  those 
who  are  about  to  be  sprinkled  with  hyssop,  and  to  be  purified 
by  the  spiritual  hyssop,  through  the  power  of  him  who  drank, 
in  his  suffering,  from  the  hyssop  and  the  reed." — C])ril,  425. 

"  Therefore  let  us  be  baptized,  that  we  may  overcome ;  let  us 
partake  of  the  purifying  waters,  more  purging  than  hyssop, 
more  purifying  than  the  blood  of  the  Law,  more  sanctifying 
than  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  and  having, 
for  the  time,  power  for  the  purification  of  the  body,  but  not  for 
the  complete  removal  of  sin." — Gregory  Nazianzen,  372. 

Sprinkling  Water,  Bloody  or  Ashes,  Effects  a  Baptism. 

POINTS. 

1.  Washing,  sprinkling ;  a  incans  toward  Bap)tism. — Ambrose 
teaches,  in  the  first  extract,  that  we  are  renewed  by  the  re- 
generative power  of  wasliiiig;  that  tlic  mode  of  the  washing 
effecting  this  renewal,  is  by  "sprinkling  with  hyssop;"  and, 
farther,  that  what  is  meant  by  "renewal"  is  a  eliango  of 
condition,  passing  out  of  a  state  of  moral  darkness  into  a 
state  of  moral  light.  This  new  condition,  effected  by  sprink- 
ling-washing, is  baptism. 

Is  this  the  doctrine  (not  theological  but  philological)  of 
the  theory?     Ls  it  not  the  identical  philological  conclusion 


BAPTISM    BY  WASHING   AND    SPRINKLING.  189 

to  wliicli  we  were  brought  by  the  Classics,  viz.,  a  thorough 
change  of  condition,  eftected  by  an  influence,  is  a  baptism? 

2.  Baptism  under  the  Law  not  of  fall  i^ower. — Ambrose  had 
before  told  us  that  there  were  "many  baptisms;"  he  now 
tells  us  that  "not  one  of  these  was  perfect."  lie  does  not 
mean  to  deny  that  any  or  all  were  perfect  baptisms,  con- 
sidered in  themselves,  but  that  they  were  relatively  imper- 
fect; the  power  effecting  the  baptism, — the  changed  con- 
dition, was  not  adequate  to  meet  all  the  necessities  of  men. 
In  like  manner  John's  baptism  was  "imperfect,"  and  for 
the  same  reason.  The  theorists  will  not  deny  that  John's 
baptism  was  perfect  as  a  baptism  considered  in  itself;  nor 
can  they  deny  that  the  Patrists  regarded  John's  baptism  as 
"imperfect"  as  respects  its  power  to  change  the  condition 
of  those  receiving  it.  The  "  imperfection  "  of  legal  baptisms 
by  sprinkling,  considered  as  carrying  with  them  "the  fulfil- 
ment of  all  righteousness,"  does  not  affect  their  being  true 
and  perfect  baptisms  in  themselves.  This  idea  of  perfectness 
of  power  in  a  baptism,  is  proof  that  form  of  act  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it;  fulness  of  result  was  the  issue  in  contempla- 
tion. 

3.  Legal  sprinldings  Baptize. — In  the  third  extract  he  de- 
clares, as  plainly  as  it  can  be  expressed  in  language,  that 
baptism  under  the  Law  and  baptism  under  the  Gospel,  are 
on  a  perfect  equality  as  baptisms ;  that  they  are,  also,  on  an 
equality  as  to  the  effecting  a  change  of  condition  from  im- 
purity to  purity;  but  as  to  the  measure  of  that  change  they 
differed.  He,  also,  tells  us,  in  terms  so  explicit  as  to  admit 
of  no  addition,  that  the  mode  of  baptism  "  according  to  the 
Law"  was  by  spr inkling,  —  '■^ 31oses  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb  upon  him  who  loas  baptized  according  to  the  law." 

4.  Tgpe  Baptism. — In  the  last  extract  this  truth  is  reaf- 
firmed with  a  vividness  and  force  which  writes  as  with  a 
pen  of  iron  in  the  rock  forever,  that  sprinkling  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb  baptizes, — brings  the  impure  out  of  their  condition  of 
impurity  into  a  condition  of  purity.  And  this  baptism  is  a 
"type"  of  that  one,  full,  and  perfect  baptism  by  the  Lamb 
of  God,  according  to  the  Gospel. 


190  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

Against  this  identification  of  sprinkling  and  baptism  Dr. 
Carson  lifts  np  a  cry  of  indignation  and  rebuke.  And  well 
he  may;  for  if  Ambrose  is  right  Carson  is  wroiig,  all  wrong, 
and  the  theory, — "  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek 
literature,"  as  also  its  amendment,  "  at  least  a  complete  cov- 
ering,"— perishes  without  hope. 

On  this  point  Carson  thus  speaks  (p.  369) :  "  To  what  pur- 
pose is  it  to  refer  us  to  the  sprinkling  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
with  blood,  with  other  sprinklings  ?  These  were  divers  imri- 
fieatlons^  Ijut  they  were  not  divers  bcqotisms.  Yet,  after  enu-- 
merating  these  sprinklings,  he  gravely  tells  us:  '!Jsow  these 
are  the  divers  baptisms  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.'  Who 
told  him  this?  The  passage  does  not  say  so;  we  have  not 
even  the  authority  of  a  dream.  Nothing  but  assumption, 
assumption,  assumption.  Why  does  he  not  identify  these 
sprinklings  with  the  baptisms?  This  has  never  been  effect- 
ed; this  cannot  be  effected.  .  .  .  There  is  here  nothing  that 
looks  like  an  identification  of  the  sprinklings  under  the  law, 
with  the  baptisms  under  the  law."  Then  let  us  try  again : 
" '  Qui  enim  baptizatur, .  .  secundum  Legem  .  .  Moyses  asper- 
gebat,'  —  For  he  who  is  baptized  according  to  the  law,  Moses 
sprinkled."  Does  this  look  more  like  identification?  "As- 
pergebatur  agni  sanguine  qui  mundari  volebat  typico  baptis- 
mate, — He  was  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  lamb  who 
wished  to  be  cleansed  with  typiccd  baptism"  Is  this  any  more 
satisfactory  ?  We  hand  over  the  charge  of  triple  assumption 
to  its  proper  ownership,  the  theory.  Sunshine  does  not  more 
surely  reveal  shadow  as  attendant  upon  substance,  than  does 
history  show  assumption  to  wait  on  the  theory.  Xow, 
that  Ambrose  calls  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  lamb 
a  baptism,  human  wit  can  neither  evade  nor  denj-;  but 
troubled  theorists  may  seek  to  escape  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  only  a  typical  baptism. 

To  this  we  answer:  1.  These  sprinklings  are  called  bap- 
tisms scores  of  times,  without  any  limiting  adjunct.  '1.  They 
are  here  called  baptisms,  regarded  in  their  own  nature,  and 
typical  baptisms,  because  they  have  such  a  nature  as  to  re- 
semble some  other  baptism  to  which  reference  is  made. 


BAPTISM    BY   WASHING   AND   SPRINKLING.  191 

3.  "Wliatevcr  may  have  been  the  conception  of  Ambrose  as 
to  the  antitj'po  baptism,  he  must  have  seen  that  conception 
shadowed  forth  in  the  type  baptism,  4.  If  Ambrose  believed 
that  a  dipping  or  a  covering  was  the  alpha  and  the  omega 
of  a  baptism,  as  the  theorists  believe,  and  as  they  affirm  that 
Ambrose  believed,  then  a  dipping  or  a  covering  must  have 
been  seen  by  this  Patrist  in  whatever  he  called  a  "  typical 
baptism."  That  this  is  true,  and  is  felt  to  be  an  absolute  ne- 
cessity under  the  theory,  by  its  friends,  a  glance  at  facts  will 
abundantly  prove.  1.  In  the  battle  of  the  Frogs  and  the 
Mice,  Gale,  who  had  assumed  the  identity  of  /Sa-rw  and 
/Jarrctw,  (the  one  in  a  short  coat,  the  other  in  a  long  coat,) 
and  had  remorselessly  shut  np  both  to  a  dipping,  felt  bound 
by  his  theory  to  eifect,  against  the  outcry  of  common  sense, 
the  dipping  of  a  lake  into  the  blood  of  a  frog.  Carson  hav- 
ing assumed  that  ftanTi^a)  means  "  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip," 
feels  bound,  against  staring  fact,  to  transmute  the  flowing 
of  the  tide  into  a  dipping  of  the  coast  into  the  sea.  Dr.  Ful- 
ler, having  assumed  that  it  means  at  least  ''a  complete 
covering,"  felt  compelled,  even  while  gazing  upon  the^;oi«^- 
ing  water  and  the  uncovered  altar,  to  declare,  though  it  is  not 
covered,  yet  it  means  that  it  is  covered.  The  whole  com- 
pan}^  of  theorists  feel  bound  to  uncover  the  shame  of  their 
assumption,  by  declaring  that  the  Apostles  w^ere  dipped  in — 
or  at  least  covered  by — the  wind,  at  Pentecost.  This  class 
of  facts  shows  how  dire  is  the  necessity,  under  the  theory, 
to  find  a  dipping  or  a  covering  wherever  the  w^ord  baptism 
is  used.  2.  Another  class  of  facts  reveals  the  same  truth. 
Whenever  the  Classics  show  ns  a  baptized  drunken  man,  or 
a  baptized  sick  man,  or  a  baptized  studious  man,  or  a  bap- 
tized business  man,  or  a  baptized  bewildered  man,  or  a 
baptized  sleeping  man,  the  theorist  feels  bound,  and  does, 
pitilessly,  put  them  all  under  the  water.  3.  The  same  de- 
velopment is  exhibited  under  another  class  of  facts.  N"oali 
is  regarded  as  having  received  a  typical  baptism.  And  the 
theorists  feel  themselves  bound  to  show  "  a  dipping,  or  at 
least  a  complete  covering."  Consequently  we  have  learned 
men  exposing  the  nakedness  of  their  wisdom  to  the  pity  or 


192  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

tlic  derision,  as  the  case  may  be,  of  every  passer  by,  by 
talking  al^out  Koali  buried  in  the  waters,  and  emerging 
from  his  grave  on  Ararat.  Again;  it  is  believed  that  Israel 
received  a  typical  baptism  at  the  Red  Sea.  And,  at  once, 
with  all  alacrit}',  as  an  obligation  which  admits  of  neither 
controversy  nor  escape,  they  set  about  the  discovery  of  "a 
dipping,  or  at  least  a  complete  covering."  With  what  suc- 
cess this  effort  is  made,  we  will  soon  consider  in  detail.  It 
is  sufficient  now  to  point  out  the  fact  that  a  typical  baptism 
is  recognized  as  embodying  the  sine  qua  von  feature  of  the 
theory.  4.  Once  more.  What  is  that  baptism  which  is  now 
practised  by  the  theorists,  according  to  their  claim,  but  a 
typical  baptism,  throwing  backward  its  resemblance  shadow, 
as  the  Flood  and  the  lied  Sea  threw  theirs  forward?  If 
anything  can  be  settled  under  the  theory,  it  is,  that  every 
baptism  must  liave  within  itself  "a  dipping,  or  at  least  a 
complete  covering;"  and  especially  is  this  true  of  every 
typical  baptism.  Is"ow,  Ambrose  furnishes  us  with  a  "  typi- 
cal baptism,"  and  tells  us  most  explicitly  how  it  was  effected, 
namely,  by  "  the  sprinldiny  of  the  blood  of  the  lamb."  Will 
some  friends  of  the  theory  do  us  the  favor  to  hunt  up  "a  dip- 
ping, or  at  least  a  complete  covering,"  in  this  baptism  ?  If 
it  is  there,  it  can  be  pointed  out,  and  then  we  will  give  up 
our  argument.  If  it  is  not  there,  then  either  Ambrose  did 
not  know  what  constituted  a  baptism,  or  the  friends  of  the 
theory  do  not.  But  they  admit  that  Ambrose  did  well  know 
all  that  entered  into  the  nature  of  a  baptism,  therefore  the 

theory,  &c. .    But,  apart  from  this  short-hand  reasoning, 

let  us  look  back  from  the  standpoint  to  which  we  are  brought, 
along  the  line  of  the  theory,  to  note  the  make-up  of  the  dip- 
pings and  coverings  for  their  baptisms.  And,  in  dt)ing  so, 
we  are  struck  with  the  fact,  that  the  dipping,  got  out  of  the 
frog's  blood,  by  Gale,  is  laughed  at  by  Carson;  while  the 
dipping  which  Carson  gets  out  of  the  rising  tide,  by  the 
invocation  of  catachresis,  Fuller,  considerately,  rejects  with 
the  unuitered  remark,  "  the  less  said  about  such  a  dipping 
the  better;"  Fuller,  himself,  warned  by  the  Scylla  which 
had  ruined  one  of  his  friends,  and  alarmed  by  the  Charybdis 


BAPTISM   BY  WASHING   AND    SPRINKLING.  193 

whicli  had  destroyed  another,  abandons  the  dipping,  and 
patronizes  "at  least  a  complete  covering;"  and,  after  quite 
reluctantly  ascending  Carmel  to  witness  the  baptism  there, 
declares,  as  he  looks  upon  the  poured-out  water,  that  "if 
the  altar  is  not  covered,  it  ought  to  be,  for  the  sake  of  a  very 
dear  theory,  and,  in  fact,  is,  by  a  most  appropriate  flood  of 
rhetoric."  I  need  but  glance  at  the  violence  done  to  sound 
reason  by  the  endless  dippings  of  individuals,  and  of  com- 
munities, of  cities  and  nations,  as  shown  in  the  misinterpre- 
tations of  Classic  baptisms.  Wor  need  I  dwell  upon  the  feats 
of  imagination,  by  which  Koah  is  dipped  into  the  flood,  Israel 
into  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  Apostles  into  the  wind.  The  the- 
orist who  can  accept  and  intellectually  digest  trifles  like  these, 
may  smile  at  the  tenpenny  nails  and  flint  stones  which  enter 
into  the  commissariat  of  the  Bird  of  the  Desert. 

We  choose  to  cast  in  our  lot  with  Ambrose  as  the  faithful 
expositor  of  Classic  baptism,  which  repudiates  the  presence 
of  a  dipping  or  a  covering  in  baptisms  of  influence,  while 
declaring,  that  the  changed  condition  etFected  by  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  sacriticial  lamb  is  a  baptism  typical  of  another 
condition,  more  full  and  more  perfect. 


CYRIL. 

In  addressing  candidates  for  baptism,  Cyril  calls  upon  the 
heavens  to  rejoice,  and  the  earth  to  be  glad,  "  because  of 
those  who  are  about  to  be  sprinkled  with  hyssop,  and  to  be 
purified  with  the  spiritual  hyssop,  by  the  power  of  Him  who 
drank  from  the  hyssop  and  the  reed."  He,  thus,  brings  to- 
gether the  type  baptism  and  the  antitype  baptism.  I  do  not 
adduce  this  fact  to  prove  that  Cyril  baptized  by  sprinkling 
(undoubtedly  he  oftentimes  did  so),  but  to  show,  1.  That  it 
never  entered  into  his  mind  to  question  that  baptism  might 
be  effected  by  sprinkling  with  hyssop.  2.  That  he  had  no 
hesitation,  however  he  may,  usually,  have  administered  the 
rite  of  baptism,  to  speak  of  it  by  the  same  terms  which  de- 
scribed the  typical  baptism;  but  inasmuch  as  the  typical 
baptism  by  hyssop  was  never  administered  otherwise  ihan 
13 


194  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

by  "sprinkling,"  while  the  Patristic  baptism  was  usually  ad- 
ministered in  a  different  form,  it  follows,  inevitably,  that 
Cyril  did  not  regard  the  mode  of  administering  baptism  as 
involved  in  the  type  or  in  the  nature  of  a  baptism.  In  other 
words,  Cyril  believed  that  baptism  was  a  change  of  condition, 
efiected  by  any  competent  influence,  and  that  it  never  in- 
volved the  question  as  to  mode  of  accomplishment;  conse- 
quently he  does  not  hesitate  to  bring  baptism,  by  sprinkling, 
face  to  face  with  baptism  administered  in  any  other  mode, 
and  even  to  call  it  by  the  modal  word  ("  sprinkle  ")  by  which 
the  type  baptism  was  accomplished.  3.  That  Cyril  believed 
that  both  the  blood  used  by  Moses  in  sprinkling,  and  the 
water  used  by  himself  after  another  fashion,  were  used  as 
77ieans,  having  a  power  of  influence  to  effect  baptisms  inde- 
pendently of  their  character  as  fluids.  Thus  he  says  (429): 
"  Do  not  regard  this  washing  (rw  Xourpw)  as  by  simple  water, 
but  by  the  spiritual  grace  given  with  the  water  .  .  .  — by 
invocation  it  acquires  the  power  of  holiness — (duva/uv  dytorrjruq 
i-urdraiy  This  truth,  overlooked  by  its  friends,  takes  the 
ground  from  underneath  the  feet  of  the  theory,  and  it  sinks 
out  of  sight.  Cyril  adds  :  "As  man  is  twofold,  purification 
is  twofold;  that  which  is  spiritual  by  the  spiritual,  that  which 
is  physical  by  the  physical;  water  pu]-ifies  the  body,  the  Spirit 
seals  the  soul;  spnnkled,  as  to  the  heart,  by  the  Spirit,  and 
washed,  as  to  the  body,  by  pure  water,  we  come  to  God." 
Sprinkling  and  washing  are  instrumental  means  to  effect  a 
change  of  condition. 

GREGORY   NAZIANZEN. 

The  testimony  of  Gregory  K,  as  to  the  two  points:  1. 
That  the  sprinklings  under  the  law  were  baptisms.  2.  That 
the  water  used  in  Patristic  baptism  had  a  baptizing  power 
communicated  to  it,  and  on  that  account,  and  on  that  ac- 
count only,  was  capable  of  baptizing,  is  the  same  as  the  tes- 
timony of  Cyril  and  Ambrose.  1.  On  the  first  point  we  have 
not  the  direct  use  of  the  word  baptism,  but  it  would  be  the 
veriest  despair  which  would  rest  an  argument  on  the  absence 


BAPTISM    BY    POURING   AND    SPRINKLING.  195 

of  a  word  in  the  presence  of  the  thing.  2.  Catechumens  are 
invited  to  come  to  baptism,  and  to  partake  of  the  purifying 
power  of  the  water,  which  is  extolled  as  transcending  that 
belonging  to  all  the  other  agencies  employed  under  the  law 
for  eftecting  baptism.  There  was  power  in  hyssop  to  bap- 
tize (change  the  condition);  there  was  power  in  sacrificial 
blood  to  baptize  (change  the  condition);  there  was  power  in 
the  ashes  of  the  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  to  baptize 
(change  the  condition);  but  there  is  "a  powe^of  baptism" 
in  Patristical  water,  which  far  excels  all  these,  according  to 
Gregory.  These  baptisms  of  sacrificial  blood  and  heifer 
ashes  could  not  perfectly  take  away  sin,  but  Patristic  bap- 
tism could  take  away  every  sin ;  therefore  these  imperfect 
baptisms  were  only  types  of  that  perfect  baptism  which 
thoroughly  changes  the  moral  condition  of  body  and  soul. 

This  view  of  baptism  (effected  by  any  influence  competent 
to  make  a  thorough  change  of  condition,  irrespective  of  form 
of  operation)  is  identical  with  the  view  presented  by  the  Clas- 
sics; it  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  theory. 


BAPTISM  BY  POUEIXG  AND  SPRINKLING. 
EzEKiEL  36  :  25,  26, 

"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you  and  ye  shall  be 
clean;  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I 
cleanse  you. 

''A  now  heart,  also,  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I 
put  within  you." 

Sepiuagint. 

Kai  pavQ)  i<p'  Vfiaq  y.aSapw  u8ajp,  xai  xaSapitrS-qa^ffSt  0.7:0  Tzaffwv  tcuv 
d.xa6ap(Ttu)v  6/j.(0Vj  xai  a~b  TzdvTUJv  twv  eiddiXwv  v/j.d)v,  xai  xaSapcu  v/xa^,  xat 
odtau)  Vfuv  xapdiav  xatvijVj  xai  7rvcD/xa  xaivov  dwffoj  iv  ufiTv. 

Interpretaiion. 

"EtcfFundara  (siveaspergam)  super  vosaquammundam  .  .  .  . 
ita  ut  super  crcdentes,  ct  ab  errore  convei'sos,  cflFundercm  aqnam 
mundam  baptismi  salutaris,  et  mundarem  eos  ah  abominatiouibus 


196  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

suis  ....  et  darem  eis  cor  novum  lit  crederent  in  Filium  Dei,  et 
spiritum  noviim,  de  quibus  David  loquitur:  Cor  mundum  crea  in 
me,  DeusJ  et  spiritum  rectum  innova  in  viscribus  meis  (Ps.  50 :  21). 
Et  considerandum,  quod  cor  novum,  et  sj^iritus  novus  detur  per 
effusionera  et  aspersionem  aquse." 

"  And  I  will  pour  out  (or  sprinkle)  upon  you  clean  water  .... 
so  that  upon  the  believing  and  those  converted,  I  will  pour  out 
the  clean  water  of  saving  baptism,  and  I  will  cleanse  them  from 
their  abominations  and  from  all  their  errors,  with  which  they 
have  been  possessed,  and  I  will  give  to  them  a  new  heart,  that 
they  may  believe  upon  the  Son  of  God,  and  a  new  spirit,  of  which 
David  speaks :  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart  and  renew  a  right 
spirit  within  me  (Ps.  50  :  21).  And  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  a 
new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  may  be  given  by  the  pouring  and 
sprinkling  of  water." — Jerome,  v,  341,  342. 

"  Adspersio  autem  secundum  legem  emundatio  peccatorum 
erat,  per  fidem  populum  sanguinis  adspersione  purificans  (Ps. 
50  :  9)  ;  sacramentum  futurse  ex  Domini  sanguine  adspersionis, 
fide  intei-im  legis  sanguine  holocaustomatum  repensante." — HiU 
anj,  i,  238. 

"  But  sprinkling  according  to  the  law  was  the  cleansing  of  sin, 
through  faith  purifying  the  people  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood 
(Ps.  50  :  9) ;  a  sacrament  of  the  future  sprinkling  by  the  blood 
of  the  Lord,  faith,  meanwhile,  supplementing  the  blood  of  the 
legal  sacrifice." — Hilary,  i,  238. 

KoX  rj  thujv  auTYj  rou  (SaTrTtfffj.aux;  ^(fCortXev  Ti  Trdvrors  7:dvzaq  rohq  xar* 
t/.t'.'^ov  Tov  y.atpov  'I(Tparj?.iTa<;  xai  laco'^tv — uj^  Iluukoq  iypail'tv  (1  Cor. 
10  :  1,  2)  :  KaX  wq  Trpo^rjTeuouffiv,  "h^e/.irj?. — (36  :  25)  '  fa>u>  if  bp-aq 
vdwp  xaSapov.   .  .   .   Aau'id  di  'PavTislg  pe  uaa(t)-u). 

"And  the  very  image  of  baptism  both  continually  illuminated 
and  saved  all  Israel  at  that  time — as  Paul  wrote  (1  Cor.  10 : 1, 
2) :  and  as  prophesied  Ezekiel,  36  :  25,  '  I  Avill  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  5^ou,  and  you  shall  be  clean  from  all  your  sins;'  and  David 
(Ps.  50  :  9) :  'Sprinkle  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be  clean.'" — 
Didymiis  Alex.,  713. 

B?j7:£t(;  TOO  j3a7:riffpaTo^  rr^v  dwapiv ddpati,  'hpouffalijp, — 

'PavTtsl  if   vpaq  uoujp  xaSapov. 

"Thou  seest  the  power  of  baptism. — Be  of  good  courage,  O 


BAPTISM   BY   POURING   AND   SPRINKLING.  197 

Jerusalem,  the  Lord  will  take  away  all  thy  iniquities.  The 
Lord  will  wash  away  the  uncleanness  of  his  sons  and  daughters 
by  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  the  spirit  of  burning,  lie  will 
sprinkle  upon  you  clean  water  and  ye  shall  be  purified  from  all 
your  sin." — Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  418. 

"Ut  inde  exeamus  loti  sanguine  nostro.  Baptisma  enim  san- 
guinis solum  est  quod  nos  puriores  reddat,  quam  aquae  baptismus 
reddidit.  .  .  .  Mihi  si  coneederet  Deus  ut  proprio  sanguine  di- 
luerer,  ut  baptismura  secundum  morte  pi'O  Christo  suscepta  per- 
ciperera.  .  .  .  Post  istud  baptisma." 

"  That  we  may  leave  this  world  washed  by  our  own  blood.  For 
it  is  only  the  baptism  of  blood  which  can  make  us  more  pure 
than  the  baptism  of  water  made  us.  ...  If  God  would  grant  to 
me  that  I  might  be  cleansed  by  my  own  blood,  that  I  might 
attain  that  second  baptism,  dying  for  Christ,  I  would  depart  out 
of  this  world  secure.  .  .  .  After  this  baptism." — Origen,  ii,  980. 

"Neque  enim  spiritus  sine  aqua  operari  potest,  neque  aqua  sine 
spiritu. — For  neither  can  the  Spirit  operate  without  water,  nor 
water  without  Spirit." — Cyprian,  1057. 

Azi  8i  xa6apiZs.ff6a.t.  xal  dyid!^£<T6at  to  udojp  rrpaJTOv  rod  lipewr;,  ha  duvqlrj 
Tui  Idicp  (ia-KziffpaTt  rdq  dpapriac:  too  ^aTZTi'^upivou  d'^6piI)nou  dnoffpb^ai 
Aid  Te  Us;:exLyjL—3Q  :  25. 

"But  it  is  necessary  that  the  water  be  first  purified  and  sancti- 
fied by  the  priest,  that  it  may  be  able  by  its  own  baptism  to 
wipe  off  the  sins  of  the  baptized  man.  And  through  Ezekiel, 
the  prophet,  the  Lord  says:  'And  I  will  sprinkle  you  with  pure 
water.'" — Cyprian,  1082, 

"  Ezek.  36  :  25 ;  Numb.  19  :  13  ;  8:7;  19  :  9.— Unde  apparet 
aspersionem  quoque  aqua)  instar  salutaris  lavacri  obtinere." 

"Whence  it  appears  that  the  sprinkling  of  water,  also,  like 
the  saving  washing,  obtains  divine  grace." — Cyprian,  1148. 

Kai  ToTi;  ddxpuffi  jiaTTTt^opevof:  ix  dsuzipuu. — "Baptized  a  second 
time  by  tears." — Clemens  Alex.,  ii,  649. 


The  "clean  water  of  saving  baptism,"  Jerome  declares  is 
communicated  by  "pouring  or  sprinkling."  The  effect  of 
pouring  or  sprinkling  this  clean  water  is  a  baptism  exhibited 


198  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

in  "a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit."  This  is,  indeed,  a  thor- 
oughly changed  condition  without  dipping  or  covering. 

Jerome  thinks  that  this  baptism  (changed  condition), 
through  the  power  of  "clean  water"  sprinkled  or  poured,  is 
so  remarkable  that  he  attaches  to  it  a  nota  bene:  "A  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit  may  be  given  by  the  pouring  or 
sjmnJdiiig  of  water." 

This  eminent  scholar,  then,  is  to  be  added  to  the  list  of 
those  who  believed  that  baptism  was  a  changed  condition 
induced  by  a  powerful  influence  imparted  to  the  water,  and 
through  it  to  those  who  received  it  in  the  ritual  ordinance. 
Jerome  never  thought  of  such  a  thing  as  a  Judaic  or  a  Pa- 
tristic baptism  being  a  dipping  or  a  covering,  any  more  than 
Classic  writers  thougiit  of  a  baptism  by  wine-drinking  being 
a  dipping  or  a  covering. 

HILARY. 

The  j^ower  of  blood  sprinkling,  under  the  law,  to  change 
the  condition  of  the  soul,  when  assisted  by  faith,  Hilary,  also, 
teaches.  He  declares  this  blood  sprinkling  to  have  been  a 
typical  sacrament.  The  only  one  which  it  could  represent 
was  that  of  baptism.  According  to  his  view,  the  sin-remit- 
ting power  of  the  blood  of  Christ  was  exerted  through  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism.  And  the  mode  of  application  is 
represented  as  by  "  sprinkling."  Let  no  one  imagine  that  I 
represent  the  (common)  mode  of  baptism  by  Patrists  to  have 
been  by  sprinkling.  I  do  no  such  thing.  I  do  what  is  more  to 
my  purpose.  I  show  that  their  view  of  baptism  was  such, 
that  in  the  very  act  of  administering  it  in  a  manner  the 
farthest  possible  removed  from  sprinkling,  they  still  felt  that 
there  was  no  possible  reason  why  they  might  not  speak  in 
the  freest  manner  of  baptism  by  sprinkling.  That  they  did 
so  speak  under  such  circumstances,  is  just  as  certain  as  that 
we  have  their  writings.  Either  these  men  knew  nothing  of 
the  dii»})ing,  covering  theory,  or  they  were  all,  and  several, 
bereft  of  their  senses  when  they  wrote  the  books  which  have 
come  down  to  us. 


BAPTISM   BY   POURING   AND   SPRINKLING.  199 


DIDYMUS   ALEXANDRINUS. 

This  distinguished  Greek  scholar  tells  us  that  "  the  image 
of  baptism"  was  ever  with  the  Jews  in  its  instructive  and 
saving  power. 

Can  imagination  conceive  of  any  greater  contrast  than 
that  presented  by  Dr.  Carson,  in  his  conception  of  baptism 
as  a  dipping  of  pots  and  cups  and  of  the  legs  and  shoulders 
of  sacrificial  victims,  and  that  of  Didymus,  as  a  source  of 
illumination  and  salvation  ? 

Eut  worse,  if  possible,  than  this.  Didymus  j)lace8  the 
theorists  in  the  very  sharpest  of  dilemmas.  He  tells  us  that 
this  "image  of  baptism"  is  exemplified  in  the  passage  of 
Paul,  1  Cor.  10 : 1,  2,  and  of  Ezekiel  36 :  25,  and  David,  Ps. 
50  :  9.  Every  theorist  accepts  the  first  as  an  undoubted  and 
most  charming  "  image  of  baptism."  "  What  could  be  more 
clear,  or  more  striking,  or  more  demonstrative  of  the  truth- 
fulness of  the  theory,  than  (the  dipping?)  the  covering,  by 
the  cloud  and  the  water  walls,  of  those  in  the  depths  of  the 
sea?"  May  be  nothing;  at  least  we  have  nothing,  just  now, 
to  say  against  it.  But  what  of  that  other  "  image  of  bap- 
tism?" What  of  that  "sprinkling  with  clean  water"  of 
Ezekiel,  and  that  "  sprinkling  with  hyssop "  of  David  ? 
Please  point  out  to  us  the  overhanging  cloud,  the  congealed 
waters,  the  cavernous  depths  which  "dip,  or  at  least  com- 
pletely cover,"  in  this  case  ?  Or,  not  to  stand  on  particulars, 
substitute  for  these  items  aught  else,  though  they  should 
"  shadow  forth"  the  theory  as  "  dimly"  as  the  mythic  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Noah.  If  time  is  wanted  for  imagina- 
tion to  work  up  the  case,  we  will  not  press  the  solution.  In 
the  meanwhile  we  present  this  dilemma  on  behalf  of  the 
Alexandrine  Greek,  viz. :  Reject  the  Red  Sea  transaction  as 
an  "  image  of  baptism,"  or  accept  the  sprinkling  of  Ezekiel 
and  David  as  equally  an  "image  of  baptism."  There  is  a 
baptism  in  each,  in  the  one  no  more,  no  less,  than  the  other, 
or  Didymus  did  not  understand  Greek.  This  alternative,  to 
be  sure,  would  cause  but  little  embarrassment  to  Carson ; 
there  is  probably  room  enough  for  Didymus  in  that  same 


200  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

school  to  which  this  never  erring  theorist  proposes  to  send 
the  Angel  Gabriel. 

CYRIL   OF  JERUSALEM. 

Our  attention  is  again  called,  1.  To  the  poiDer  of  baptism, 
— zoo  ^a-riaimxoz.  2.  To  the  fact  that  this  power  is  developed 
by  "  the  sprinkling  of  pure  water."  If  "line  upon  line" 
will  establish  as  truth  that  these  baptisms  were  not  dippings, 
but  the  result  of  a  divine  power  exerted  through  water,  aud 
that  sprinklings  of  this  water  were  baptisms,  then  the  truth 
is  established. 

ORIGEN. 

1.  The  use  of  "loti,"  icashed,  claims  attention.  It  shows 
the  groundless  character  of  the  claim  set  up  by  Dr.  Carson, 
that  Aouw,  or  lavo,  when  no  part  is  specified,  shall  put  the 
whole  man  into  water  or  in  some  way  cover  him  with  it. 
This  demand  overlooks  the  fact  that  in  religious  washings 
no  mere  physical  cleansing  is  contemplated.  And,  conse- 
quently, a  man  may  be  completely  washed,  religiouslj^,  by 
the  application  of  a  cleansing  element  to  a  very  limited  part 
of  the  bod}'.  And  that  in  such  cases  "washing"  does  not 
refer  to  the  local  efl'ect  of  the  application,  but  to  the  nature 
and  extent  of  its  religious  influence.  These  things  are  clearly 
shown  by  the  present  case.  No  one  could  be  so  irrational 
as  to  suppose  that  this  refers  to  a  physical  washing.  None, 
surely  could  be  so  infatuated  by  theory  as  to  imagine  that 
Origen  represents  the  martyrs  as  "covered"  in  their  blood. 
Yet  they  arc  represented  as  washed  by  blood,  completely 
washed  from  head  to  foot,  thoroughly  washed  body  and  soul. 
How  is  this?  Because  there  is  a  virtue,  influence,  power 
("jus,"  "vis,"  " ^uva/if?,")  in  martyr  blood,  which  takes  away 
sin  and  tiius  cleanses;  aud  this  cleansing  is  called  a  washing, 
which  in  no  wise  depends  on  the  extent  to  which  the  blood 
is  applied.  When  Dr.  Carson  would  make  two  kinds  of 
cleansing  out  of  sprinklinfj  and  washing  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
(making  the  latter  to  cover,)  lie  does  that  which  is,  absolutely, 
without  foundation.     The  same  thing  is  indicated  by  cither 


BAPTISM   BY   POURING  AND   SPRINKLING.  201 

phraseology ;  in  the  former  the  modal  application  is  stated, 
and  in  the  other  the  result  of  the  application.  The  same  is 
true  with  regard  to  purifying  water  or  any  other  purifying 
agency;  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn  as  to  the  mode  or  ex- 
tent of  use,  because  the  result  is,  religiously,  a  universal 
washing. — Martyr  blood,  not  one  drop  of  which  falls  upon 
the  person,  "washes"  the  whole  man.  The  remembrance 
of  this  usage  would  have  saved  from  some  great  errors. 
Sprinkling  can  wash  from  impurity,  or  from  sin,  as  well  as 
a  deluge  of  waters;  and  therefore  may  baptize,  as  Origen 
declares  martyr  blood  does. 

2.  Bapiisma  sanguinis. — Baptism  of  blood,  is  phraseology 
demanding  consideration.  This  use  of  the  genitive  joins 
with  the  simple  ablative  ("proprio  sanguine"),  as  well  as 
with  the  exigencies  of  the  case,  to  make  imperative  the  con- 
clusion, that  in  this  baptism  blood  is  the  source  whence  comes 
the  causative  influence  inducing  the  baptism,  and  is  not  the 
element  in  which  an  object  is  to  be  mersed,  dipped,  or  covered. 
To  discriminate  between  the  agency  efi'ecting  a  baptism,  and 
the  element  within  which  the  baptized  object  is  placed  (when 
such  element  exists),  is  of  vital  importance.  This  is  espe- 
cially true  where  a  fluid  is  the  agency  causative  of  the  bap- 
tism; because  a  fluid  is  the  natural  element  within  which  a 
baptism  takes  place,  and  therefore,  ofters  a  special  facility 
for  the  deception,  by  ourselves  or  others,  which  would  rob 
it  of  its  true  position  as  an  agency  and  convert  it  into  the 
wholly  distinct  office  of  a  receiving  element.  The  case  before 
us  is  such  as  not  only  to  assist  in  reaching,  but  to  compel  the 
adoption  of  a  true  conclusion.  The  use  of  the  cases,  as  just 
indicated,  would  be  enough  for  the  scholar;  but,  possibly, 
not  enough  for  the  controversialist.  But  even  controver- 
sialists, generally  at  least,  will  hold  their  peace  in  view  of 
the  impossibility  of  a  martyr  being  either  dipped  or  covered 
in  his  0W71  blood. 

Dr.  Carson  ought  here,  on  his  own  principles,  to  run  up 
the  white  flag.  He  says,  that  in  any  case  of  use  where  a 
primary  meaning  is  impossible,  there  a  secondary  meaning 
finds  credentials  of  legitimate  birth.     Now,  it  is  absolutely 


202  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

impossible  for  a  martyr  to  be  baptized,  dipj)ed,  covered  in 
his  blood,  which  Dr.  C.  says  is  primary  baptism;  but  Origen 
says  that  their  own  blood  does  baptize  all  Christian  martyrs; 
therefore,  Origen  must  use  "baptize"  in  a  different  sense 
from  the  primary  "dipping,  covering." 

This  is  logic,  and  common  sense,  and  consistency,  but, 
alas!  rhetoric  slays  them  all.  Hyperbole  can  expand  "the 
blood  of  a  frog"  to  the  dimensions  of  an  ocean,  and  "dip  a 
lake"  into  it;  and  w^iy  should  its  magical  arts  prove  incom- 
petent to  fill  a  baptistery  with  the  blood-drops  of  martyrdom 
and  dip  "the  witness"  into  it? 

The  theory  has  executed  feats  as  difficult  as  this,  and  we 
have  not  much  hope  of  the  controversialist.  But  we  ask 
the  attention  of  all  others  to  the  fact,  that  Origen  declares 
that  their  own  blood  baptizes  martyrs,  and  that  he  wished 
thus  to  be  baptized  himself,  not  to  corne  out  of  a  bloody  jjool  all 
dripping  icith  gore,  but  that  his  condition  as  a  sinner  might  be 
thoroughly  changed,  and  his  soul  pass,  washed  from  all  sin, 
into  the  presence  of  God! 

3.  Baptismum  secundum. — This  blood  baptism  was  a  "  sec- 
ond baptism;"  what  was  the  first?  Water  baptism.  Now, 
observe  that  between  these  two  baptisms,  as  to  their  gene- 
ral nature  or  modal  execution,  Origen  does  not  make  the 
slightest  distinction.  In  so  far  as  they  were  baptisms  there 
was  none  to  be  made.  They  were  of  the  same  general  na- 
ture, having  power  to  cleanse  from  sin ;  and  as  to  modal 
execution,  such  a  thing  was  never  known  since  the  Greek 
was  a  language,  so  far  as  the  word  was  concerned.  While, 
therefore,  the  mode  of  executing  the  first  baptism  (bj'  water) 
may  have  diftered  from  the  mode  of  executing  the  second 
baptism  (by  blood),  this  difference  no  more  controls  nor  be- 
longs to  the  baptism,  than  does  the  mode  of  martyrdom,  by 
beheading  or  crucifixion,  aflfect  the  making  or  unmaking  of 
a  blood  baptism. 

"Water-baptism  and  blood-baptism  are  identified  as  bap- 
tisms of  like  reality  and  character,  (diflering  only  in  the 
measure  of  their  value,)  by  being  termed,  without  qualifica- 
tion, a  first  and  a  second  baptism.     13ut  we  have  farther  evi- 


BAPTISM   BY   POURING   AND   SPRINKLING.  203 

clence.  They  not  only  stand  on  the  most  absolute  equality 
as  baptisms,  but  the  water  and  the  blood  stands  each,  to  its 
own  baptism,  in  precisely  the  same  relation,  namely,  that  of 
an  agency.  As  "baptisma  sanguinis"  indicates  blood  to  be 
the  source  of  this  baptism,  so,  ''aquae  baptismus"  indicates 
water  as  the  source  of  that  baptism.  ^Neither  water  nor  blood 
— not  water  any  more  than  blood — is  represented  as  a  re- 
ceiving element;  they  are  alike  agencies.  In  full  accord  with 
this  grammatical  testimony,  is  the  unbroken  Patristic  testi- 
mony, which  ascribes  to  water  a  "  power"  to  baptize,  wholly 
independent  of  its  natural  qualities  as  a  fluid,  which  "power," 
and  not  fluidity,  is  the  pivot  on  which  turns  all  their  inter- 
pretations of  Judaic  baptisms  and  of  images  of  "the  perfect 
baptism." 

E'ow,  it  is  a  matter  of  infinite  indifterence  in  what  man- 
ner the  water  was  employed  in  this  first  baptism.  Employ 
it  as  you  will,  by  sprinkling,  by  pouring,  by  dipping  into  it, 
by  walking  into  it  to  such  a  depth,  or  such  a  depth,  and 
dipping  so  much  as  may  be  left  above  the  water,  or  by  any 
other  simple  or  complex  movements  imaginable,  and  after 
all  is  done,  Origen  declares  that  the  water  is  an  agency  to 
purify  from  sin,  and  that  the  baptism  is  a  changed  condition, 
produced  by  this  "power,"  independent  of  any  modal  use. 
A  baptism  in  water  (drowning  or  covering  indefinitely)  has 
no  more  to  do  with  the  "baptism  0/ water"  of  Origen,  than 
a  baptism  in  wine  (drowning  or  covering  indefinitely)  has  to 
do  with  a  baptism  o/wine  (making  thoroughly  drunk).  Water 
and  wine,  as  fluids,  have  a  quality  of  nature  adapting  them 
to  receive  and  envelop  objects  placed  within  them,  and  this 
is  called  a  baptism  of  those  objects,  Wine  has  a  quality  of 
nature  (intoxicating)  which  develops  itself,  not  when  objects 
are  put  into  it,  but  when  drunk.  And  the  development  of 
this  influence  by  drinking,  is  called  a  baptism.  These  two 
baptisms,  in  wine,  as  a  receiving  fluid,  and  of  wine,  as  an  in- 
toxicating fluid,  have  this  in  common,  that  they  both  exhibit 
their  objects  under  a  thoroughly  changed  condition:  but  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  condition,  and  as  to  the  mode  of  effect- 
ing the  condition,  the  diftereuces  are  such  as  to  present  noth- 


204  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

ing  ill  common.  Patristic  water  has  a  "power,"  not  intoxi- 
cating, bnt  spiritnally  purifying;  not  of  nature,  but  by  special 
divine  communication;  which  "power,"  like  that  of  wine,  is 
capable  of  ba[)tizing.  Its  development  is  effected  by  sprink- 
ling, by  pouring,  and  by  washing.  A  man  baptized  by  this 
"power"  of  water,  differs  from  a  man  baptized  wi"  simple" 
water,  just  as  a  soul  without  a  sin-spot  differs  from  a  man 
who  is — very  wet.  Origen's  philology  is  unimpeachable;  his 
theology  is  not  so  good. 

CYPRIAISr. 

Cyprian  offers  the  same  testimony  as  that  already  con- 
sidered. 

1.  Water  has  a  power  to  baptize.  But  this  power  is  not 
a  quality  inherent.  "The  Spirit  cannot  baptize  without 
water,  nor  can  water  baptize  without  the  Spirit."  How  ab- 
surdly untrue  would  this  be  if  the  writer  referred  to  water 
as  capable  of  receiving  an  object  within  itself.  This,  surely, 
it  can  do  without  the  special  intervention  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
In  this  respect  the  heathen  had  baptisms;  yet  they  were  not 
baptisms,  because  the  water  was  used  without  the  Spirit, 
and  no  baptism  was  effected;  the  condition  of  the  soul  re- 
mained unchanged. 

2.  Therefore,  Cyprian  says:  "The  water  itself  must  be 
first  purified,  sanctified,  baptized,  that  it  may  by  its  own 
baptism  wipe  off  the  sins  of  the  baptized  man."  So  Tertul- 
lian  says:  "Ita  de  sancto  sanctificata  natura  aquarum,  et  ipsa 
sanctificare  coneepit."  Is  it  not  surprising  that  the  friends 
of  the  theory  should  have  overlooked  the  great  gulf  which 
separates  baptisms  by  such  water,  from  baptisms  in  water, 
through  a  natural  enveloping  quality? 

3.  Cyprian  quotes  the  text  under  consideration,  to  show 
that  these  peculiar  baptisms  were  effected  by  the  "sprink- 
ling" of  this  pure  water. 

How  marvellously  inept  is  the  objection  that  sprinkling 
cannot  baptize  by  the  "power"  of  this  water!  Go  tell  the 
old  Greeks  that  drinking  cannot  baptize  by  the  power  of 


BAPTISM    BY   POURING   AND    SPRINKLING.  205 

wine,  that  hearing  cannot  baptize  by  the  power  of  bewilder- 
ing questions,  and  they  will  tell  you  that  your  Greek  sounds 
very  "modern"  in  their  ears.  "But  these  were  cases  of 
'figure.'"  Yes,  very  much  such  "figure"  as  that  of  Gale, 
which  made  Carsou  laugh;  and  very  much  such  "figure" 
as  that  of  Carson,  which  might  well  make  Fuller  smile; 
and  very  much  such  "figure"  as  that  of  Fuller,  at  which 
some  friend,  who  comes  after  him,  will  yet  kindly  smile; 
while  all  the  world  will  laugh  at  a  theory  which  fills  the 
Classics  with  figure-pools  and  torrents,  and  empties  the 
treasury  of  rhetoric  to  meet  the  exhaustive  demand  from 
Patrists  for  a  dipping  ornamentation. 

4.  Cyprian  quotes,  besides  this  passage  of  Ezekiel,  those 
in  Numb.  19  :  13;  Kumb.  8  :  7;  Numb.^19  :  19;  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  showing  that  the  baptizing  power  of  water 
is  developed  by  sprinkling,  as  truly  as  by  any  other  mode. 

CLEMENS  ALEXANDRINUS. 

This  learned  Greek  declares  that  a  second  baptism  may 
be  by  tears,  as  the  learned  Origen  had  declared  that  it  might 
be  by  martyr-blood.  Shall  this  baptism,  by  sprinkling  tears, 
give  origin  to  another  figure — hyperbolic?-  Well,  I  suppose 
that  is  the  best  disposition  which  the  theory  can  make  of  it. 

Alongside  of  these  clear  and  reiterated  statements  of  bap- 
tisms by  sprinkling  of  water,  blood,  and  tears,  look  at  these 
statements  of  Dr.  Carson :  "  Sprinkling  cannot  be  called  bap- 
tism with  more  propriety  than  sand  can  be  called  water. 
This  I  do  not  leave  as  an  inference  from  my  doctrines:  I  wish 
to  proclaim  it  to  all  my  brethren."  (p.  392.)  This  is  undoubt- 
edly true  on  Dr.  C.'s  theory  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
viz., "  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature." 
But  to  make  good  this  theory,  it  will  be  necessary  to  enlarge 
the  school-house  at  Tubbermore,  and  provide  primers  for  all 
the  old  Greeks,  and  the  whole  army  of  Patrists,  that  they 
may  learn  anew  their  native  tongue. 

Again  (p.  400):  "If  one  instance  of  sprinkling  was  called 
immersion,  I  would  give  up  the  point  of  univocal  meaning." 


206  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Let  US  sec:  "Qui  enim  baptizatur  .  .  .  Moyses  aspergebat." 
According  to  Carson,  "  baptize  "  always  means  immerse;  then 
Ambrose  says,  "He  Avbo  was  immersed  .  .  Moses  sprinkled." 
Again  :  "lie  was  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  lamb,  who 
wished  to  be  cleansed  with  typical  immersion  (baptism)."  Is 
this  the  lightning  which  Dr.  Carson  called  for  to  smite  his 
univocalisra  ?  And  (p.  401) :  "A  people  who  called  a  puri- 
fying, by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  a  baptism! ! !  Where  is  such 
a  people  ?  Not  under  the  heavens.  The  facts  alleged  to  prove 
this,  are  all  mere  assumptions."  Pretty  substantial  assump- 
tions. And  with  Clement,  and  Cyprian,  and  Origen,  and 
Cyril,  and  Didymus,  and  Hilary,  and  Jerome,  as  represen- 
tatives of  "  the  people  who  call  purifying,  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  a  baptism,"  the  neighborhood  "  where  such  peo- 
ple may  be  found,"  is,  at  least,  proximately  answered. 

The  Greeks,  or  the  theorists,  certainly  are  in  trouble  as 
to  what  constitutes  a  baptism.  The  theorists  say  that  angels 
and  inspired  men  are  wrong  if  they  do  not  agree  with  them, 
and  I  suppose  we  may  as  well  throw  in  the  Greeks  (Classics 
and  Patrists)  into  the  bargain. 


CIRCUMCISION    BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM    BY    CIRCUMCISION. 

Joshua  5:3,9. 

''And  Joshua  made  him  sharp  knives,  and  circinncised  the 
children  of  Israel,  at  the  hill,  of  the  foreskins. 

''  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Joshua,  This  day  have  I  rolled  away 
the  reproach  of  Lg^-pt  from  off  3'ou." 

Interprclation. 

Tit;  ouv  £-1  fint  -tpcTO/xr^q  Xuyoi;  utzo  tdu  dunj  fiaprupy]6-VT'..  Ti;  ixeii/ou 
Toil)  fia~TtffnaTO(;  ypsia  dyiu)  ~vBUfxaTi  ISsfiaTZTiff/xivoj. 

"What,  then,  is  the  Avord  of  circumcision  to  me,  having  re- 
ceived testimony  from  God?  What  need  is  there  of  that  bap- 
tism to  one  baptized  by  the  Holy  .Spirit?" 


BAPTISM   BY   CIRCUMCISION.  207 

^Exzhoq  XiycTai  dturipav  TZspcTO/xijV  .  .  .  ,  ^iq  Tzspiize/jsv  r^iiaq  aoroq 
^IrjGooq  Xpiaroq, 

"  He  is  said  to  have  circumcised  the  people  with  a  second  cir- 
cumcision, by  stony  knives,  which  was  an  announcement  of 
this  circumcision  with  which  Jesus  Christ  himself  circumcises 
us  from  stones  and  other  idols." — Justin  Martyr,  437;  757. 

IleptTo/iij,  zo~r/.rj  ooffa  ff(fpay\'Z- 

"For  it  is  better  to  be  sanctified  unconsciously,  than  to  depart 
unsealed  and  imperfect.  And  the  evidence  to  us,  of  this,  is  cir- 
cumcision on  the  eighth  day,  being  a  typical  seal,  and  adminis- 
tered to  those  without  intelligence." — Gregory  Nazianzen,  ii,  400. 

Tti'j  Tveu/iarr/.Yjv  Xaiijjdvorxsv  ff<ppaylda  aym  ITveu/xaTC  dtd  zou  Xoozpoo 
•K£ptzeiiW>ij.z'^oi.    .    .    .    ^Ev  zfj  ntpizofirj  zou  XpiffZOU. 

"  Therefore,  by  the  likeness  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  we  come 
into  adoption.  And,  then,  after  faith,  like  to  him,  we  receive 
the  spiritual  seal,  being  circumcised  through  washing  by  the 

Holy  Spirit By  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  being  buried 

with  him  by  baptism." — Cyril,  513. 

"  Videamus  tamen  quale  sit  hoc  ipsum  quod  dicitur,  quia  ho- 
die  abstuli  opprobrium  a  filiis  Israel.  Omnes  homines  etiamsi 
ex  lege  veniant,  etiamsi  per  Moyses  eruditi  sint,  habent  tamen 
opprobi-ium  iEgj-pti  in  semet  ipsis,  opprobrium  peccatorum.  .  .  . 
Sed  ex  quo  venit  Christus,  et  dedit  nobis  secundam  circumcisi- 
onem  per  baptismum  regenerationis,  et  purgavit  animas  nostras, 
abjecimus  haec  omnia,  et  pro  iis  assumpsimus  conscienti^e  bon^e 
astipulationem  in  Domino.  Tunc  per  secundam  circumcisionem 
ablata  sunt  nobis  opprobria  iEgypti,  et  purgata  sunt  vitia  pecca- 
torum. .  .  .  Audis  quia  hodie  abstulit  a  te  opprobrium  ^g3'pti." 

"We  maj^  see,  however,  what  means  that  saying:  'To-day, 
I  have  taken  away  reproach  from  the  children  of  Israel.'  All 
men,  even  though  they  ma}^  come  from  the  law,  even  though 
they  may  have  been  taught  by  Moses,  have,  notwithstanding,  in 
themselves,  the  reproach  of  Eg3'pt,  the  reproach  of  sins.  .  .  . 
But  since  Christ  came  and  gave  to  us  the  second  circumcision 
by  the  baptism  of  regeneration,  and  purged  our  souls,  we  have 
cast  away  all  these  things,  and  in  their  stead  have  received  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  in  the  Lord.     Then,  by  the  second 


208  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

circumcision  the  reproaches  of  Egypt  have  been  taken  away 
from  us,  and  the  vices  of  our  sins  have  been  purged.  Thou 
hearest  that  to-day  he  takes  from  thee  the  reproach  of  Egypt." 
—Origen,  n,  850,  852. 

Circumcision  is  a  Baptism. 

JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

Justin  Martyr  explicitly  declares  that  circumcision  is  a 
baptism.  This  declaration  is  marked  neither  by  hesitation 
nor  by  qualification.  He  makes  no  explanation  of  the  use 
as  though  it  were  unusual  and  needed  apology;  but  simply 
and  absolutely,  as  though  well  understood,  he  speaks,  cur- 
rente  verbo,  of  circumcision  as  a  baptism. 

This  use  of  the  word  is  too  palpable  to  be  denied.  Is, 
then,  univocalism  abandoned?  The  promise  was  that  it 
would  be  when  one  case  of  sprinkling  was  called  baptism. 
Such  case  has  been  adduced,  and  now  we  present  another 
quite  as  far  removed  from  a  dipjring  as  is  sprinkling.  Dr. 
Carson  boasts  that  "  no  case  has  been  adduced  where  the 
word  must  have  any  other  meaning  than  dipping."  Does 
circumcision  mean  dipping  ? 

But  what  does  Dr.  Carson  say  of  this  case  ?  This  (p.  490) : 
"  He  sometimes,  also,  speaks  of  circumcision  as  a  baptism, 
or  agreeing  in  the  emblem,  though  altogether  diflerent  in 
the  things  and  in  the  words  that  designate  them.  Study 
this,  and  it  will  show  how  the  Fathers  can  call  various 
things  by  the  name  of  baptism,  without  importing  that  they 
are  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  word." 

,*'  Study  this,"  the  Doctor  says.  Another  development  of 
his  penchant  for  sending  folks  "  to  school."  But  some  things 
cannot  be  studied  out,  in  school,  without  the  help  of  "  the 
master,"  and  this  Delphic  utterance  is,  surely,  one  of  them. 

Dr.  Carson  has  written  a  book  of  lialf  a  thousand  pages, 
to  prove  that  baptism  is  a  modal  act  —  and  nothing  but  a 
modal  act,  and  claims  that  if  there  is  any  truth  in  axioms 
he  has  settled  such  to  be  its  meaning;  and  yet,  a  case,  ad- 
mittedly called  "baptism"  by  a  highly  cultivated  Greek 


BAPTISM   BY   CIRCUMCISION.  209 

philosopher,  in  "which  the  act  done  differs  from  the  act 
claimed  to  be  proved  by  axioms,  as  far  as  pole  from  pole, 
and  as  absolutely  as  a  straiglit  line  from  a  circle,  is  dismissed 
in  five  sphynxlc  lines  thrown  out  for  "  study !"  Every  de- 
feated leader  has  a  right  to  choose  his  own  method  and  line 
of  retreat.  It  is  generally  done  under  the  cover  of  thick 
darkness ;  and  so  it  is  here. 

While  I  do  not  understand  these  lines  and  give  np  their 
"study,"  there  are  some  things  in  them  and  about  them  of 
which  we  may  speak. 

1.  "He  sometimes  speaks  of  cutting  around  (circumcision) 
as  a  dipping  (baptism)."  Does  any  one  believe  that  Justin 
Martyr  ever  spoke  of  the  act  of"  cutting  around"  as  an  act 
of  "dipping?"  Has  such  a  statement,  enunciated  by  any 
one,  a  claim  to  anything  but  silent  incredulity? 

2.  Where  does  Dr.  C.  get  that  addendum. — "  or  agreeing  in 
the  emblem  ? "  There  is  not  one  syllable  of  it  in  the  words 
of  Justin ;  nor  one  to  justify  its  introduction.  Justin  calls 
circumcision  a  baptism,  and  baptism  it  must  remain  in  spite 
of  any  attempt  by  light-handedness  to  change  it  into  some- 
thing else. 

3.  But  what  is  meant  by — "or  agreeing  in  the  emblem?" 
It,  of  course,  flatly  denies  that  circumcision  is  a  baptism; 
which  Justin  had  straitly  affirmed;  but,  apart  from  this,  after 
the  Martyr's  statement  has  been  murdered,  what  usurper  is 
appointed  to  its  place  ?  On  this  same  page  we  are  told  that 
the  converted  Greek  philosopher  believed  that  baptism  Avas 
immersion,  and  that  he  believed  that  immersion  was  em- 
blematical of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection;  now  does  cir- 
cumcision agree  with  immersion  as  an  emblem  of  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  ? 

Dr.  Carson  might  say  in  unravelling — "study  this" — cer- 
tainly this  is  its  emblem:  the  flesh  cut  off" dies;  who  can  deny 
that  it  was  buried?  The  burden  of  proof  does  not  lie  with 
me;  that  it  mag  be  buried  is  enough  for  my  purpose;  proof 
after  so  many  ages  cannot  be  asked  ;  and,  as  for  resurrection, 
"who  that  has  a  soul"  cannot  see  it  in  the  life  of  the  babe, 
beautifully  developing  after  the  "death"  and  "burial  "of 

14 


210  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

its  own  flesh  !  Or,  with  less  of  rhetoric,  but  more  of  learn- 
ing, the  "student"  might  be  instructed  thus:  "Circum" 
means  around;  and,  if  dimly  yet  beautifully,  shadows  forth 
the  waters  which  are  around  every  immersed  disciple;  while 
the  act  of  "scision"  cannot  go  "around"  without  first  de- 
scending and  then  ascending,  and  as  a  downward  movement 
and  an  upward  movement  are  involved  in  every  case  of  "  dip- 
ping," what  could  be  a  more  beautiful  emblem  of  this  act? 
Circum-cision,  therefore,  is  a  beautiful  emblem  of  dipping 
and  surrounding  with  water!  Undoubtedly.  IIow  surprising 
that  things  made  palpable,  under  a  competent  teacher,  by  a 
few  luminous  words,  should  otherwise  remain  hid  for  ages ! 
"Why  this,  before  incomprehensible  emblem  of  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  in  circumcision,  is,  now,  just  as  plain  as  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Noah  in  the  flood,  of  Israel 
walking  between  the  water-walls,  and  of  the  disciples  in  the 
wind!  "Not  so  much  light  as  Christian  houesty,"  must  be 
wanting  in  the  man  who  cannot  see  a  demonstration  so  plain 
as  this! 

Having  sufficiently  admired  at  these  profundities  in  the 
school  of  Tubbermore,  let  us  now  turn  in  another  direction. 

4.  Admitting,  or  certainly  not  questioning,  the  exegesis 
to  which  we  have  just  attended,  we  are  under  the  necessity 
of  putting  its  remarkable  light  "under  a  bushel,"  inasmuch 
as  there  is  no  "emblem  "  in,  nor  introducible  into,  the  state- 
ment of  Justin.  This  is  absolutely  certain.  This  attempt 
to  ally  the  circumcision  baptism  of  Justin  with  the  ritual 
baptism  of  the  theory,  is  all  in  the  air.  It  is  as  foundation- 
less  as  a  dream  of  the  night.  The  statement  is:  "  Of  what 
use  to  me  is  circumcision  baptism,  having  been  baptized  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  V  What  "  emblem  "  is  there  here  ?  What 
room  is  there  for  its  introduction  by  the  most  heated  imagi- 
nation ?  Is  there  any  death,  burial,  resurrection,  or  dipping, 
in  "baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit?"  Is  not  the  statement 
simply  and  clearly  this:  Having  received  a  perfect  baptism, 
what  need  have  I  of  an  imperfect  baptism  ? 

Dr.  Carson,  instead  of  raising  the  question,  "May  I  not 
have  mistaken  the  nature  of  a  baptism  ?"  when  he  meets 


BAPTISM   BY   CIRCUMCISION.  211 

"witli  tlie  word  in  circumstances  irreconcilable  with  his  con- 
ception of  it,  sets  to  work  to  cloud  the  inconsistency,  so  that 
its  rude  outlines  may  be  as  little  repulsive  as  possible.  I  do 
not  say  that  he  does  this  consciously,  to  evade  truth;  for  I 
believe  that  his  ideas  upon  this  subject  were  so  fully  regarded 
as  absolute  truth,  that  he  would,  in  very  deed  as  he  says  that 
he  would,  have  told  the  Angel  Gabriel,  denying  it,  to  sit  down 
at  his  feet  and  "  study  this." 

This  writer,  after  affirming  with  all  the  emphasis  of  which 
language  is  capable,  that "  baptize  "  must  always,  everywhere, 
mean  dip  ;  and  after  resorting  to  all  sorts  of  figures  to  bring 
it  "dimly"  out,  where  it  confessedly  was  not,  in  fact;  and 
after  subjecting  common  sense  to  torture,  (so  that  with  its 
dislocated  members  it  was  no  longer  recognizable,)  in  order 
to  secure  some  qyj  that  might  sound  like  "  dip,"  is  now  com- 
pelled to  admit,  that  here  is  a  case  in  which  there  is  no  dip- 
ping, in  which  figure  can  form  no  shadow  of  dipping,  and  in 
which  common  sense  presents  no  bone  unbroken  by  which, 
on  the  rack,  a  groan  might  be  extorted  to  save  a  dipping. 
We  leave  the  case,  in  extremis,  to  be  medicated  by  any  heroic 
remedies  which  the  wit  of  the  fast  friends  of  the  theory  may 
suggest.  In  the  meanwhile  we  seek  an  exposition  of  the 
passage  under  other  auspices. 

Justin  was  a  Greek.  He  spoke  and  wrote  the  language 
of  Homer  and  Plato.  He  had  the  knowledge  to  speak  it 
correctly;  he  had  the  right  to  use  it  with  the  same  breadth 
of  freedom  ;  and  he  has  authority  in  his  usage  equal  to  that 
of  any  Classic.  Classic  usage  has  been  examined.  It  has 
been  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  Greek  scholars,  (between 
whose  attainments,  and  those  of  Dr.  Carson,  I  wish  not  to 
make  invidious  comparisons,)  that  ^anri'^ai  does  not  make  de- 
mand for  a  definite  act,  as  Dr.  C.  declares,  but  for  condition : 
1.  With  inness  of  position.  2.  Condition,  controlled  by  in- 
fluence, without  intusposition.  Or,  stated  in  terms  suffi- 
ciently comprehensive  to  embrace  both  classes:  "Whatever 
act  or  influence  is  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  char- 
acter, state,  or  condition  of  an  object,  is  capable  of  baptizing 
that  object,  and  by  such  change  of  character,  state,  or  con- 


212  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

dition,  assimilating  that  condition  to  itself,  does,  in  fact, 
baptize  it." 

Classic  usage  presents  such  an  endless  variety  in  the  forms 
of  action  and  in  the  natures  of  condition,  that  no  limitation 
can  be  assigned  to  either,  beyond  that  in  the  statement  now- 
made. 

Apply,  now,  that  result  reached,  by  a  detailed  study  of 
every  known  case  of  Classic  Baptism,  to  the  case  in  hand. 
Is  it  capable  of  expounding  it  ?  If  not,  there  must  be  error 
or  imperfection,  for  a  complete  definition  must  fairly  cover 
every  case  of  usage,  without  exception.  In  reply,  we  may 
pass  by  the  form  of  the  act,  for  with  this  baptism  has  nothing 
to  do,  and  limit  our  evidence  to  the  competency  of  the  act 
or  influence  to  thoroughly  change  the  condition  of  its  object. 
This,  then,  is  the  determining  question:  "Does  circumcision 
change  the  character,  state,  or  condition  of  the  circumcised 
person  ?"  Can  the  most  devoted  friend  of  the  theory  answer 
this  question  in  the  negative  ?  Is  not  every  circumcised  per- 
son, man  or  babe,  taken  by  circumcision  out  of  an  uncove- 
nanted  condition,  and  brought  into  a  covenanted  condition? 
It  is  not  necessary  to  raise  here  the  question  as  to  the  nature 
of  this  covenant,  whether  it  embraced  spiritual  blessings,  or 
was  limited  to  those  which  were  temporal ;  either  answers 
our  purpose  perfectly  well.  The  condition  demanded  by 
the  word  requires  nothing  beyond  completeness  and  assimi- 
lation. Circumcision,  as  a  covenant  seal,  brings  into  a  new 
condition  as  to  the  promises  of  God,  whatever  the  character 
of  those  promises  may  be. 

If  there  is  any  authority  in  Classic  usage,  Justin  is  over- 
shadowed by  all  the  fulness  of  that  authority,  when  he  calls 
circumcision  a  baptism.  One  square  foot  does  not  more 
fully  cover  another  square  foot  than  does  the  definition 
cover  this  case  of  usage.  Consider,  now,  the  defiance  which 
it  offers  to  all  the  manipulations  of  the  theory,  to  bring  it 
under  the  control  of  its  errors,  and  can  there  be  any  doubt 
as  to  the  answer  which  should  be  given  to  the  inquiry, 
"  What  is  truth?"     The  theory  is  bankrupt. 

Circumcision  by  Stonj  Knives. — Carson  says:  "In  like  man- 


BAPTISM   BY   CIRCUMCISION.  213 

ner  Justin  speaks  of  Christians  as  having  the  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision of  which  Greeks,  and  those  like  him,  were  par- 
takers, though  they  had  nothing  that  literally  resembled  what  was 
imported  by  the  ivordJ'  This  admission  springs  a  mine  beneath 
the  Doctor's  theorizing,  which  makes  it  a  hopeless  wreck. 
In  scores  of  cases,  in  Classic  usage,  he  has  attempted  to  find 
out  a  resemblance — where  there  was  none — to  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word,  as  claimed  by  him.  Thus  he  hunts 
up  some  figure  by  which  he  can  convert  the  covered  and 
uncovered  sea-shore  into  a  beautiful  case  of  "dipping."  "In 
like  manner  "  water  poured  upon  an  altar  is  converted  into 
a  dipping.  "In  like  manner"  drunkenness  becomes  a  dip- 
ping, sleep  becomes  a  dipping,  sickness  becomes  a  dipping, 
magical  arts  become  a  dipping,  hard  study  becomes  a  dip- 
ping, an  overloaded  stomach  becomes  a  dipping,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 
And  for  what  is  all  this  irrational  procedure?  Why,  in  good 
sooth,  to  establish  a  philological  miracle;  to  show  that  a  word 
of  physical  form  of  act  (so  claimed)  carries  that  form  of  act 
with  it  out  of  the  physical  into  the  metaphysical  world,  and 
where  the  act  is  drinking,  hearing,  seeing,  eating,  thinking,  still 
it  is  "dipping!"  Can  the  history  of  philology  parallel  so 
wild  an  assumption  of  the  infinite  credulity  of  men  ?  And 
all  this  rather  than  accept  that  so  universal  principle,  of  a 
secondary  meaning  to  words,  as  applicable  to  this  word. 

But  after  trampling  under  foot  confessedly  contradictory 
facts,  and  transmuting,  by  some  Rosicrucian  principle,  "one 
form  of  act  into  another  form  of  act;"  and  after  ransacking 
imagination  to  discover  "a  resemblance"  to  the  physical 
form,  or,  at  least,  some  shadowy  picture,  we  have  at  last  the 
confession,  that  a  word  which  literally  expresses  a  definite 
form  of  action,  may  be  applied  to  cases  in  which  there  is 
"  nothing  that  literally  resembles  what  was  imported  by  the 
word."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  under  such  cir- 
cumstances either  the  Avord  has  lost  all  meaning,  or  it  has 
acquired  a  secondary  meaning. 

But  while  Dr.  Carson  abandons,  incontinently,  all  attempt 
to  discover  a  "  cutting  around,"  real  or  pictured,  in  the  cir- 
cumcision by  Christ  received  by  Justin,  he  challenges  angels 


21-4  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

and  men  to  deny  that  there  was  a  "  dipping,"  in  the  baptism 
hy  the  Holy  Spirit,  received  by  this  same  Justin.  If  it  should 
be  said,  that  the  admission  of  Dr.  Carson  that  circumcision 
has  lost  its  form  of  act,  does  not  imply  that  baptism  has  lost 
its  form  of  act,  I  answer:  1.  There  is  no  form  of  act  in  bap- 
tism, to  lose.  2.  Any  one  who  admits  that  "circumcision" 
has  lost  its  form  of  act  in  circumcision  by  Christ,  and  denies 
that  "baptism"  has  lost  its  form  of  act  in  baptism  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  has  certainly  lost  his  reason. 

This  rejection  of  what  is  vital  to  a  word  in  its  primary  use, 
and  the  adoption  of  some  associated  idea  in  secondary  use, 
is  of  constant  development.  "I  am  an  American,"  means, 
primarily,  I  am  born  on  American  soil.  But  one  born  on  the 
other  side  of  the  globe  may  say,  "I  am  an  American,"  re- 
jecting claim  to  birth,  and  claiming  to  hold  the  principles 
which  distinguish  American  citizens.  Paul  says  of  uncir- 
cumcised  Christians,  ye  are  the  circumcision,  because  they 
held  ^/te ^;rwi«}j^f5  which  appertained  to  circumcision;  and  he 
denies  that  the  circumcised  Jew  was  of  the  circumcision,  be- 
cause they  rejected  those  principles.  The  same  thing  is  ex- 
hibited in  the  declaration,  "They  are  not  all  Israel  which 
are  of  Israel."  In  such  usage  there  is  a  modification  of  the 
primary  meaning,  and  the  development  of  a  conception 
which  was  subordinately  in  the  primary  meaning,  or  which 
had  become  an  outgrowth  of  it,  or  an  accretion  around  it. 
So  /5a-r£'^w  rejects  the  form  of  condition  belonging  to  its  lit- 
eral, primary  use,  and  develops  the  idea  of  controlling  influ- 
ence, growing  out  of  such  form  of  condition. 

Justin's  baptism  "  by  the  Holy  Spirit"  rejects  form  of  con- 
dition and  expresses  the  controlling  influence  of  the  Divine 
Spirit;  just  as  "circumcision  l)y  Christ"  rejects  the  form  of 
act  and  confers  the  reality  exhibited  by  that  act, 

I  do  not  enter  upon  any  detailed  examination  of  "baptism 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  as  here  spoken  of,  (it  will  come  up  in 
its  place,)  but  merely  remark,  that  as  there  is  no  more  of 
dipping  or  covering  in  this  baptism  than  there  is  in  baptism 
by  circumcision ;  so,  if  the  theory  stumbles  at  the  one,  it 
oujrht  to  fall  down  discomfited  before  the  other. 


BAPTISM   BY   CIRCUMCISION.  215 


GREGORY    NAZIANZEN. 

Circumcision,  typical  Baptism. — This  writer  teaches  that  cir- 
cumcision was  a  typical  seal  or  baptism ;  and  as  this  type 
baptism  was  administered  to  infants  eight  days  old,  when 
intelligence  was  yet  undeveloped,  so  the  antitype  seal,  or 
baptism  should  be  administered  to  those  who  were  in  danger 
of  dying,  whether  infants  or  adults,  as  was  the  common 
practice.  It  should  be  observed,  that  while  Justin  speaks  of 
baptism  by  circumcision,  he  contrasts  it,  as  to  efficacy,  with 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  Gregory  makes  circum- 
cision baptism  a  type  of  ritual  baptism.  If  the  Fathers  had 
regarded  Christian  baptism  as  only  a  type  or  symbol  bap- 
tism, they  could  not  have  made  these  Judaic  baptisms  types 
of  it,  for  there  cannot  be  a  type  of  a  type ;  but  they  believed 
it  to  be  an  efficacious  baptism,  one  of  divine  power  over  the 
condition  of  the  soul,  and  therefore,  could,  consistently, 
make  it  the  antitype  of  Old  Testament  typical  purifications. 
Justin  Martyr  was  more  orthodox  than  those  that  came  after 
him,  and  he  refers  type  baptism  to  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  without  the  intervention  of  water. 

CYRIL. 

Circumcised  hy  Washing. — "  Circumcised  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
through  washing."  In  this  circumcision,  the  prime,  efficient 
agent  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  efficient,  instrumental  agency 
is  "the  washing,"  and  the  result  is  an  unfleshly,  spiritual 
nature. 

We  have  here,  proof,  1.  Of  the  type  character  of  circum- 
cision ;  that  it  was  a  purification  of  the  flesh,  and  therefore 
was  called  a  baptism  which  was  suitable  to  foreshadow  that 
spiritual  purification  which  cleansed  the  soul,  and  was  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  2.  The  Holy  Spirit  operated 
through  the  water  to  take  away  sin. 

Mem. — Cyril,  Gregory',  and  Justin  forgot  to  point  out  the 
resemblance  to  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  in  this  type 
baptism. 


216  JUDAIC   BAPTISIVI. 

BAPTISM  BY  DKOPS  OF  BLOOD. 
Exodus  12  :  7,  12,  13. 

"  And  they  shall  take  of  the  blood,  and  strike  it  on  the  two 
side  posts,  and  on  the  upper  door-post  of  the  houses. 

"  For  I  will  pass  through  the  land  of  Egypt  this  night,  and 
■will  smite  all  the  first-born  in  the  land  of  Eg^-pt. 

"And  the  blood  shall  be  to  you  for  a  token  upon  the  houses 
■where  ye  are;  and  when  I  see  the  blood  I  will  pass  over  you." 

Interpretation. 

"Pascha  nostrum  pro  nobis  iramolatus  est  Christus  Deus." 

"EiTTa^e  ydfj  ru  at;ia  d-d  ri^r  ~X£updq  i-\  tt^v  yy/^,  xai  Tw  iiuKoaiioj  aurrj^ 
anmi-a  k^ey.dBripev.   .   .    . 

Aid  rij-  i!^u/i<)?u>yrj<Tecu^  i/.dCrjps'^  iaurtv  rou  puTzuu  riuv  dp.apzT/pd~wv. 

"Christ  the  Lord,  our  Passover,  was  slain  for  us.  Why  was 
he  slain  without  the  city,  and  on  a  high  place,  and  not  under 
some  roof?  This  was  not  without  reason,  but  that  he  might 
purify  the  nature  of  the  air.  For  this  reason  was  he  slain  on 
high  and  not  beneath  a  roof,  but  with  the  heavens  stretched 
over  him  instead  of  a  roof,  that  the  whole  heavens  might  be 
purified.  Therefore  the  sky  was  purified,  and  the  earth  was 
purified.  For  the  blood  from  ?iis  side  dropped  upon  the  earthy  and 
purged  away  all  its  defilement.  .  .  .  He  (the  thief)  did  not  dare 
to  say,  'Remember  me'  until  that  by  confession  he  purified 
himself  from  the  pollution  of  sins.  .  .  .  For  the  strength  of  con- 
fession is  great,  and  it  has  great  power.  For  he  confessed,  and 
behold  he  found  Paradise  opened;  he  confessed,  and  he,  Avho 
was  a  robber,  received  boldness  to  ask  a  kingdom." — Chrysostomy 
ii,  40G,  409. 

Kai  ravra  fta'KTiffo/xev  ]  .  .  .  w^  dk  xat  tj  rwv  (fh.aJv  /piff'.^,  Std  rmv 
dvaiffOrjTuiv  (po)AxTouaa  rd  -piurunr/.a. 

"And  shall  Ave  baptize  these  (infants)  ?  Certainly';  .  .  .  the 
evidence  of  this  is  circumcision,  which  is  a  t3'pical  seal  .... 
and  in  like  manner,  the  smearing  of  the  door-posts,  protecting, 
through  these  insensible  things,  the  first-born." — Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,  ii,  400. 

Ba~7i(7iio.>  (jj^  xaOapTuov  owra  Travrwv  rj/iuiv. 


BAPTISM   BY   DROPS   OF   BLOOD.  217 

"  He  calls  his  death  baptism  as  being  a  purging  of  us  all." — 
Theophylact,  Matt.  22. 

"  lies  duo  baptismos  de  vulnere  perfossi  lateris  emisit." 
"  These  two  baptisms  he  shed  forth  from  the  wound  of  his 
pierced  side." — Tertullian,  357  j  Paris,  1634. 

"  Baptisma  publicse  confessionis  et  sanguinis  proficero  ad  sa- 
lutem  potest.  .  .  .  Sanguine  suo  baptizatos  et  passione." 

"  The  baptism  of  a  public  confession  and  of  blood  may  avail 
for  salvation,  (but  not  to  a  heretic  out  of  the  church.)  The  Lord 
declares  in  the  Gospel,  that  those  baptized  by  his  blood  and 
passion  are  sanctified  and  attain  the  grace  of  the  divine  prom- 
ise, when  he  speaks  to  the  thief  believing  and  trusting  in  the 
very  passion,  and  promises  that  he  shall  be  with  him  in  Para- 
dise."—C?/i?naw,  1123,  1124. 

To  aiiia  Toib  npo/SaTou  ruTzoq  rod  al/iaroq  rou  Xptazoo. 

"  The  blood  of  the  lamb  is  a  type  of  the  blood  of  Christ." — 
Basil,  M.  iv,  124. 

Baptism  of  "  the  Mrst-born." 

This  passage,  and  the  interpretations  directly  and  indi- 
rectly connected  with  it,  establishes  in  the  most  conclusive 
manner,  that  there  is  a  class  of  baptisms  with  which  neither 
the  act  of  dipping,  nor  a  covering,  eftected  in  any  way,  has 
anything  to  do.  And  more  than  this;  it  is  established  that 
the  source  of  the  baptizing  power  need  not  even  be  in  con- 
tact with  the  baptized  object. 

Gregory  JSTazianzen  speaks  of  circumcision  as  typical  of 
baptism,  "and  in  like  manner"  the  blood  smeared  on  the 
door-posts  of  the  families  of  Israel.  The  argument  which 
he  extracts  from  them  is  this :  Inasmuch  as  typical  circum- 
cision was  able  to  influence  the  condition  of  the  child,  which 
was  all  unconscious  of  the  transaction,  and  inasmuch  as 
typical  blood  upon  the  door-posts  destitute  of  all  intelligence, 
was  capable  of  influencing  the  condition  of  the  child,  un- 
conscious of  the  transaction  and  untouched  by  the  blood, 
yet  on  whose  behalf  that  blood  was  sprinkled  by  parents  in 
the  way  appointed  by  God;  therefore,  infant  children  with- 


218  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

out  any  intelligence  as  to  the  ordinance,  may  receive  antitype 
baptism,  and  be  changed  as  to  their  condition  by  receiving 
a  more  perfect  purification  through  the  antitype,  than  type 
circumcision  could  effect;  and  a  more  perfect  salvation  than 
the  type  blood  of  the  passover  lamb  could  bring  to  "  the 
iirst-born."  This  was  Patristic  reasoning;  and  whatever 
else  it  may  show,  it  does  show  conclusively,  that,  in  their 
view,  type  baptisms  shadowed  forth  the  cleansing  of  the 
soul  from  sin  and  its  redemption  unto  eternal  life,  by  puri- 
fications of  the  body,  and  the  preservation  of  the  natural 
life,  and  did  not  shadow  forth  "  a  dipping"  or  "a  covering." 

When  the  root  idea  of  all  baptisms,  (thorough  change  of 
condition,)  is  apprehended,  not  only  can  no  embarrassment 
arise  from  the  absence  of  a  dipping  or  a  covering,  but,  also, 
no  embarrassment  can  arise  from  a  baptism  declared  to  be 
efiected  by  a  baptizing  substance  which  does  not  touch  the 
baptized  object. 

Whether  water,  blood,  or  ashes  shall  be  used  in  divine 
worship  is  a  matter  of  sovereign  appointment.  How  they 
shall  be  used,  and  what  shall  be  their  value,  are  matters  of 
the  same  pure  sovereignty.  That  blood,  blood  of  a  lamb, 
should  be  used  in  the  Passover;  that  it  should  be  used  by 
"striking;"  that  this  striking  should  be  against  the  door- 
l^osts;  that  the  transaction  should  enure  to  the  benefit  of 
"the  first-born,"  were  all  matters  pertaining,  not  to  the 
nature  of  things,  however  wise  and  fit  they  may  have  been, 
but  to  the  good  pleasure  of  Israel's  God.  It  being  thus 
determined  that  the  condition  of  "  the  first-born"  should  be 
changed,  not  by  dipping  them  into  water,  nor  by  covering 
them  with  blood;  but  by  God-fearing  parents  striking  the 
family  door-posts  with  the  bloodied  hyssop  branch,  thus 
bringing  them  out  of  a  condition  of  impending  death,  into  a 
condition  of  unimperilled  life,  this  change  of  condition,  with- 
out the  slightest  regard  to  the  mode  of  its  accomplishment, 
is  Chissically  as  well  as  Patristically  called  a  Baptism.  They 
were  baptized  into  a  condition  of  safety  by  the  sprinkled 
blood.  Any  attempt  to  solve  such  baptisms  by  "  a  dip- 
ping" of  these  little  ones  must  be  made  under  jirotest  from 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  EARTH,  AIR,  AND  SKY.       219 

philology  and  common  sense;  not  made  very  loud,  but 
enough  to  clear  their  skirts  against  any  charge  that  might 
be  made  hereafter  of  their  being  guilty  participants,  even 
by  silence,  in  such  unwisdom. 

It  will  be  observed  that  I  use  the  phraseology  out  of  one 
condition  into  another  condition,  although  there  is  no  move- 
ment "out  of"  anything,  or  "into"  anything.  There  is  no 
change  of  position.  The  reason  is,  1.  The  poverty  of  lan- 
guage. 2.  Analogical  fitness  m  some  respects.  In  physical 
things,  change  involves  movement;  and  movement  out  of  one 
thing  into  another  thing,  involves  comjjkie  change;  when, 
therefore,  there  is  "  a  change,"  not  of  position  but  condition, 
it  may  be  expressed  by  a  word  immediately  declaring  move- 
ment, but  implying,  necessarily,  the  idea  of  "change;"  and 
when  the  change  is  a  complete  one,  we  may  introduce  "out 
of"  and  "  into,"  because  of  what  they  involve,  {thorough 
change,)  and  not  because  of  what  they  directly  and  of  them- 
selves express;  thus  giving  them,  in  such  usage,  a  real 
secondary  value,  while  movement  has  disappeared. 

"The  first-born"  j^ossed  out  of  one  condition  into  another 
condition,  as  the  destroying  angel  passed  over  them,  with- 
out passing,  for  one  moment,  from  the  quiet  shelter  of  their 
mother's  bosom. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE  EARTH,  AIR,  AND  SKY. 

Chrysostom  in  speaking  of  the  results  attendant  upon  the 
sacrifice  of  our  Passover  Lamb,  Christ  the  Lord,  declares, 
without  using  directly  the  word,  that  the  earth,  and  the  air, 
and  the  sky  were  thereby  baptized.  E"o  one,  who  remem- 
bers by  what  varied  terms  and  descriptions  the  Patrists  set 
forth  baptism,  will  hesitate  to  acknowledge  a  baptism  as 
taught,  (though  the  word  should  not  appear,)  merely  on  the 
ground  of  the  absence  of  that  word.  That  a  baptism  is  here 
designed  is  shown,  1.  By  the  baptizing  power  attributed  to 
the  person  of  Christ.  2.  By  the  pre-eminent  power  attributed 
to  his  shed  blood.  3.  By  the  sameness  of  phraseology  em- 
ployed, as  when  avowedly  describing  a  baptism.  4.  By  the 
express  use  of  the  word  "baj^tism"  by  other  writers  in  con- 


220  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

neetion  witli  this  transaction.  5.  By  the  baptism  ascribed 
to  the  repentant  thief. 

The  propriety  of  attributing  a  baptism  to  the  earth,  air, 
and  sky,  by  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  on  the  summit  of  Cal- 
var}^,  beneath  the  heavens,  and  with  his  blood  dropping  upon 
the  earth,  is  found  in  the  claim,  that  their  condition  was 
thoroughly  changed  thereby. 

Chrysostora  tells  us,  that  before  this  great  transaction  the 
world  at  large  was  impure  and  unfit  for  divine  worship, 
Judea  and  the  temple  only  being  sanctified  to  this  end;  but 
by  the  death  of  Christ  outside  of  the  city,  "  lifted  up  with 
no  covering  roof,  the  whole  earth  became  sanctified;"  so 
that  men  could  "lift  up  holy  hands,  acceptable  to  God, 
everywhere."  He  expounds  his  " lifting  up"  upon  the  cross 
as  designed  "to  purify  the  nature  of  the  air,"  therefore,  ef- 
fectually to  change  its  condition.  So,  of  the  overhanging 
heavens,  "purified." 

As  to  the  competency  of  a  few  drops  of  blood  from  the 
pierced  side  of  the  Son  of  God  "  to  baptize"  this  whole  earth, 
no  one  who  reads  the  Patrists  can  have  any  doubt  that  they 
believed  in  such  efficacy,  or  that  they  could  consistently  em- 
ploy such  language. 

The  justification  of  such  usage  is  found  in  the  true  nature 
of  ^anTi^o),  which  they  well  understood,  and  use  in  this  case, 
as  might  be  expected,  with  the  utmost  propriety. 

It  is  but  a  short  time  since  the  friends  of  the  theory  ridi- 
culed a  baptinrj  by  a  few  blood-drops.  They  have  learned 
better;  and  now  admit  that  a  few  drops  (to  express  it  pre- 
cisely in  English  as  in  Greek)  can  dip.  Hippocrates  says, 
"ErzetSdv  i-Krrd^rj  l/j.drca  [id-"ZM.  "  Wlicu  it  drops  upon  tlic  gar- 
ments they  are  dipped  (dyed)." 

Chrysostom  uses  the  same  verb  and  the  same  preposition 
to  express  the  dropping  blood  from  the  Redeemer's  side,  by 
which  he  says  the  world  was  baptized,  changed  as  to  its  con- 
dition, being  purified  and  sanctified  universally  to  the  service 
and  worship  of  God. 

Theorists  now  believe  that  the  Father  of  Medicine  wrote 
good  Greek  when  he  said  "coloring  drops  can  (A^>  (dye)." 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  PENITENT  THIEF.  221 

TVe  wait  for  their  confession  that  "the  Golden  Mouth" 
understood  Greek  as  well,  when  he  claims  the  purging  of  the 
world,  by  blood-drops  from  the  cross,  to  be  a  baptism. 

BAPTISM    OF    THE    PENITENT    THIEF. 

The  baptism  of  the  penitent  thief  is  another  exemplifica- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  principles  relied  upon  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  baptisms. 

In  it  there  is  neither  "dipping"  nor  "covering,"  any  more 
than  in  the  baptism  of  "  the  earth,  and  air,  and  sky."  Nor 
are  there  even  a  few  drops  of  blood  which  hyperbole  might 
magnify  into  a  pool;  for  those  blood-drops  upon  him  are 
not  of  "a  witness"  for  Christ,  but  witnesses  of  his  guilt  as 
a  thief.  Nor  do  "those  two  baptisms  shed  forth  from  the 
Saviour's  side,"  of  which  Tertullian  speaks,  reach  his  firmly 
nailed  body.  How  then,  was  he  baptized?  Chrysostom 
and  Cyril  both  answer  by  "  the  baptism  of  confession.''  This 
baptism  was  grounded  in  the  Saviour's  declaration — "  He 
that  confesseth  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  before  my 
Father  in  heaven."  Hence  the  ^'jjower"  of  confession  became 
a  subject  for  eulogy.  The  former  of  these  two  writers  says, 
that  the  thief  "purified  himself  from  the  pollutions  of  sin 
bg  confession."  He  declares  that  "the  strength  of  confession 
is  great  and  has  great  power."  "He  confessed,  and  behold 
he  found  Paradise  opened." 

How  entirely  removed  is  the  conception  of  these  writers 
and  their  associates  as  to  the  nature  of  a  baptism,  from  that 
presented  by  the  theory,  is  manifest  from  their  speaking  of 
"confession,"  and  "blood,"  and  "water"  as  possessed  of 
^^poicer,"  and  therefore  competent  to  baptize.  There  is  not 
a  syllable  which  likens  them  to  pools,  floods,  or  torrents.  No 
such  elements  of  thought  are  introduced  by  them  into  the 
explanation  of  these  baptisms.  This  antagonism  of  view 
between  the  modern  theory  and  these  Greeks  is,  alone,  suf- 
ficient to  convict  of  error,  unless,  indeed,  these  ancient 
worthies  also,  are  to  be  "sent  to  school."  Such  course,  in 
this  case,  might  prove  dangerous,  for  Chrysostom  has  the 
credit  of  having  overmastered  his  master,  (the  most  cele- 


222  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

bratecl  of  his  clay,)  while  yet  iu  his  teens.  That  measuring- 
rod  at  Tubbermore  which  we  are  told  is  applied,  as  a  matter 
of  conscience,  to  the  talents  of  every  opposer  of  the  theory- 
might  prove  too  short. 

The  "baptisma  confessionis"  without  dipping;  without 
"pouring  long  enough  to  cover;'''  without  "washing,  which 
may  be  by  bathing  and  therefore  by  immersion ;"  without 
a  cleansing  of  the  feet,  "  which  may  be  done  by  imilmg  them 
into  it,  which  is  an  immersion  as  far  as  it  goes;''  without  an 
ark  or  a  lishing-boat,  which  might  then  "  dimly  shadow  forth 
a  burial  and  a  resurrection;"  without  any  element  of  deep 
emotion,  which  then  might  be  converted  into  "  an  overflow- 
ing torrent;"  without  mental  solicitude,  which  then  might 
be  made  "a  burden  to  sink  in  deep  waters;"  without  any 
help  whereby  a  figure  or  a  picture  can  be  wrought  out,  this 
"baptisma  confessionis"  cannot  but  be  a  stumbling-block 
to  the  theory.  "Confession,"  through  the  influence  of  blood- 
drops  from  the  cross,  baptizes  the  penitent  sinner  and  fits 
him  for  Paradise ! 


BAPTISMS  OF  FIRE. 

BAPTISM    BY   THE    FLAMING    SWORD. 

Genesis  3 :  24. 

"  So  he  drove  out  the  man  :  And  he  placed  at  the  cast  of  the 
garden  of  Eden,  cherubims  and  a  flaming  sword,  which  turned 
every  way,  to  keej)  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life." 

Interpretation. 

" Non  unum  est  baptisma:  unum  est  quod  hie  tradit  Ecclesia, 
per  aquam  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  quo  necesse  est  baptizari  cate- 
ehumcnos.  Est  ct  aliud  baptisma,  de  quo  dicit  Dominus  Jesus: 
'  Baptisma  habeo  baptizari,  quod  nos  nescitis,'  (Luke  12  :  10.)  Et 
utiquc  jam  baptizatus  in  Jordane  fucrat,  sicut  supcriora  de- 
clarant; sed  sit  hoc  baptismum  passionis,  quo  etiam  sanguine  suo 
uuusquisque  mundatur. 

"Est  etiam  baptismum  in  paradisi  vestibulo,  quod  antca  noa 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE.  223 

erat:  sed  posteaquara  peccator  exclusus  est,  coepit  esse  romplia^a 
ignea,  quam  posuit  Deus,  quse  antea  non  erat,  quando  jjeccatum 
non  erat. 

"Culpa  ccspit,  et  baptismum  coepit:  quo  purificentur,  qui  in 
paradisum  redire  cupiebant,  ut  regressi  dicerent :  '  Transivimus 
per  igneni  et  aquam.'  (Ps.  66:12.)  Hie  per  aquam,  illic  per 
ignem.  Per  aquam,  ut  abluantur  peecata :  per  ignem  ut  exu- 
rantur.  .  .  . 

"  Quis  est  qui  in  hoc  igne  baptizat?  .  .  .  Ille  de  quo  Johannes 
ait :  '  Ipse  vos  baptizabit  in  Spiritu  sancto  et  igne.'  .  .  .  Veniet 
ergo  Baptista  Magnus,  sic  enini  eum  nomino  quomodo  nominavit 
Gabriel  dicens,  (Luc.  1:32,)  'Hie  erit  Magnus,'  videbit  multos 
ante  paradisi  stantes  vestibulum,  movebit  rompbceam  versati- 
lem,  dicet  iis  qui  a  dextris  sunt,  non  habentibus  gravia  peecata: 
'Intrate  qui  preesumitis,  qui  ignem  non  timetis.'  .  .  .  Intrate  in 
requiem  meam;  ut  unusquisque  nostrum  ustus  romphoea  ilia 
flammea,  non  exustus,  introgressus  in  illam  paradisi  amceni- 
tatem,  gratias  agat  Domino  suo,  dicens:  'Induxisti  nos  in  re- 
frigerium.'  "  (Ps.  66  :  12.) 

"  Baptism  is  not  one :  that  is  one  kind  which  the  Church  gives 
by  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  wherewith  it  is  necessary  that 
catechumens  be  baptized. 

"And  that  is  another  Baptism,  of  which  the  Lord  Jesus  says: 
'  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  which  ye  know  not.' 
(Luke  12  :  10.)  And  as  he  had  already  been  baptized  in  Jordan, 
as  previously  stated,  this  must  be  the  Baptism  of  Passion  by 
which,  through  his  blood,  every  one  of  us  must  be  cleansed. 

"  There  is,  also,  a  baptism  at  the  entrance  of  Paradise  which 
formerly  did  not  exist;  but  after  the  transgressor  was  excluded, 
the  flaming  sword  began  to  be,  which  God  established,  which 
was  not,  before,  when  sin  was  not.  Sin  began  and  baptism 
began;  by  which  they  might  be  purified  who  desired  to  return, 
that  having  returned  they  might  say:  '  We  have  passed  over  by 
fire  and  water.'  (Ps.  66:  12.)  Here  by  water,  there  by  fire.  By 
water,  that  sins  may  be  washed  away;  by  fire,  that  they  may  be 
consumed.  .  .  . 

"  Who  is  it  that  baptizes  by  this  fire?  ...  He  of  whom  John 
says,  '  He  shall  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.'  .  .  . 
Then  shall  come  the  Great  Baptizer,  (for  so  I  call  him  as  Gabriel 
called  him,  saying,  (Luke  1 :  32,)  '  He  shall  be  Great,')  he  will 


224  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

sec  many  standing  before  the  entrance  of  Paradise,  he  will  wave 
the  sword  turning  every  wa}^  He  will  say  to  those  on  the  right 
hand,  not  having  weighty  sins,  'Enter  ye,  who  are  of  good 
courage,  who  fear  not  the  fire.'  .  .  . 

"Enter  into  my  kingdom:  So  every  one  of  us  burned  (puri- 
fied) by  that  sword,  not  consumed,  having  entered  into  the 
delights  of  Paradise,  may  give  thanks  to  his  Lord,  saying,  (Ps. 
66:12,)  ^  Thou  hast  brought  us  into  rest.'" — Ambrose,  ii,  1227, 
1228. 

"  Statuit  igneam  romphoeam,  et  cherubim  custodire  viam  ligni 
vitffi.  .  .  .  Audi  vSalvatorem  ratione  ignis  et  ferri  in  duobus  locis 
significantem.  In  alio  loco  ait:  'Won  veni  mittere  pacem  super 
terram,  sed  gladium.'  In  alio  vero:  '  Tgnem  veni  mittere  super  ter- 
ram,-  et  utinam  jam  ardeat.'  Igitur  defert  utrumque  Sal vator,  gla- 
dium  et  ignem,  et  baptizat  qu^  non  potuerunt  Spiritus  Sancti 
purificatione  purgari." 

"  He  places  a  flaming  sword  and  cherubim  to  guard  the  way 
of  the  tree  of  life.  And  as  if  a  sword,  sharj)  and  hot,  be  struck 
against  the  body,  it  causes  double  pain,  of  burning  and  of  cut- 
ting, so,  also,  the  sword  which  is  mentioned  as  placed  as  a  guard 
of  Paradise,  produces  double  torment,  it  burns  and  it  cuts.  Stu- 
dents of  the  medical  art  say  that  some  diseases  require  not  only 
the  cutting  of  the  knife,  but,  also,  burning.  Cancers  require 
that  the  jDutrid  flesh  shall  be  cut  out  and  their  roots  burned. 
Dost  thou  think  that  our  cancer,  as  I  may  call  it,  has  a  like 
viciousness,  so  that  neither  the  mere  sharpness  of  the  knife  nor 
the  mere  burning  of  fire  can  sufiice,  but  both  must  be  applied, 
that  it  may  be  both  burned  and  cut?  Hear  the  Saviour  show- 
ing the  use  of  fire  and  knife,  in  two  passages:  In  one  place  he 
says:  'I  have  not  come  to  send  peace  on  the  earth  but  a  sword'  But 
in  another  place  he  says:  'I  have  come  to  send  fire  upon  the 
earth,  and  I  wish  it  were  already  kindled.'  Therefore  the 
Saviour  brings  both,  sword  and  fire,  and  baptizes  those  things 
WHICH  could  not  be  purged  by  the  purification  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." — Origen  (translated  by  Jerome),  iii,  704. 

lb  St  TTutq  i-avilOrjq  ei^  rov  r.apddtiaov,  fiij  G(fpaYi(tO=.\q  tu>  jSaKTca/xan] 
"II  ovx  oT^a?,  or{   yhtyivi]  pofKpaia  TtTaxTat  (fuldaaziv  rijv  odiv  rou  ^bloo 

"But  how  canst  thou  come  back  again  into  Paradise,  not 
being  sealed  by  baptism?     Dost  thou  not  know  that  the  flam- 


BAPTISM    BY   FIRE.  225 

ing  sword  has  been  set  to  guard  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life,  to 
the  unbelieving  terrible  and  consuming,  but,  to  the  believing, 
easy  of  approach,  and  pleasantly  shining?" — Basil,  iii,  428. 


The  exposition,  by  Ambrose,  of  the  import  of  baptism  in 
genera],  and  as  bearing  on  this  passage  in  particular,  is  very 
explicit,  and  very  far  removed  from  the  Baptist  conception 
of  what  is  essential  to  a  baptism. 

^^  Baptism,  is  not  one."  In  absolute  contradiction  of  the 
assertion  of  this  eminent  writer,  the  theory  declares  that 
baptism  is  one.  When  the  theorists  take  this  position,  they 
mean  to  say  that  baptism  is  a  fixed  quantity.  Some  say  that 
the  "quantity  "  consists  in  the  form  of  an  act,  in  the  most 
marvellous  disregard  of  facts.  Others  say  the  form  of  the 
act  may  vary,  but  a  covering  of  the  object  must  not  vary. 
It  is  farther  affirmed  that  this  unity  is  such  an  absolute  ne- 
cessity, that  in  application  to  things  not  physical,  and  where 
neither  form  of  act  nor  covering  can  exist,  in  fact,  yet  there 
must  be  a  creation,  by  the  force  of  imagination,  of  the  one 
or  the  other,  according  as  this  or  that  class  of  theorists  may 
attempt  to  defend  the  case.  Water,  wine,  oil,  milk,  blood, 
marsh  mud,  the  receiving  elements,  may  vary;  but  the  bap- 
tism, the  dipping  or  the  covering,  cannot  vary.  Baptism  is 
one.     "  It  is  mode,  and  nothing  but  mode." 

If  the  idea  of  baptism  is  exhausted  by  the  performance  of 
a  modal  act,  then  no  argument  is  needed  to  prove  that  "  bap- 
tism is  one."  It  is  a  self-evident  proposition.  Or,  if  the  idea 
of  baptism  consists  in  a  modal  covering,  departure  from  which 
is  as  destructive  as  the  dashing  of  a  crystal  vase  against  a 
flinty  rock,  then  argument  is  at  an  end,  and  "  baptism  is 
one."  I  say  nothing,  now,  about  the  difficulty  which  these 
parties  to  the  unity  have  among  themselves  in  determining 
what  the  unit  is;  it  is  enough,  at  present,  to  turn  the  case 
over  to  Ambrose,  who  says :  "Baptism  is  tio^  one."  But  if 
it  be  "72o<  one,"  then  it  is  not  a  modal  act,  for  that,  as  the 
theory  claims,  must  ever  be  "one;"  nor  is  it  a  modal  cover- 
ing, for  that,  too,  as  the  theory  claims,  must  ever  be  "one." 

15 


226  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Whatever  baptism  may  be,  if  Ambrose's  decision  is  worth 
anything,  this  Janus-faced  theory  is  ^Yortll  nothing. 

Lest  any  one  should  have  doubts  as  to  the  extent  of  the 
repudiation  of  this  "oneness,"  I  would  call  to  mind  a  pre- 
vious declaration  by  this  same  writer:  ^^ 3IuUa  sunt  genera 
baptismatum."  The  theory  refuses  to  give  baptism  the 
dignity  of  a  sjyecies.  It  cuts  it  down  to  a  severe  individualism. 
It  is  like  nothing  but  itself;  and  when  it  becomes  like  any- 
thing else,  it  ceases  to  be  itself.  "  It  is  dip,  and  nothing  bid  dip, 
through  all  Greek  literature."  Now,  Ambrose  not  merely 
rejects  the  notion  that  baptism  is  a  thing  simple  and  indivis- 
ible, always  and  everywhere  the  same,  but  he  refuses  to 
accept  the  broader  idea  of  species  with  its  individual  peculi- 
arities; he  will  not  allow  even  the  limitation  which  belongs 
to  genus  and  its  varying  species;  he  insists  that  the  "  baptis- 
mata  "  rise  up  to  the  elevation  of  a  class,  and  that,  too,  of 
such  a  breadth  as  to  include  "  multa  genera.^'' 

Were  ever  opposing  views  more  thoroughly,  more  broadly, 
and  more  universally  contradictory  than  those  of  the  theor- 
ists, and  this  Patrist,  as  to  the  nature  of  baptism  ? 

We  have  had  already  enough  of  facts  before  us  to  show 
which  now  is  right.  We  have  seen  that  "genus"  of  bap- 
tisms, which  pertains  to  physics,  including  various  differen- 
tial species,  such  as  stones,  metals,  coasts,  uninfluenced  by 
baptism  ;  a  bag  of  salt,  a  ship,  a  human  being,  influenced  by 
baptism ;  and  we  have  seen  that  "  genus  "  of  baptisms,  taking 
in  the  intellect,  and  exhibited  in  varying  "  species,"  such  as 
drunkenness,  somnolence,  feeble-mindedness,  &c.,  &c.  And 
yet  another  "genus,"  embracing  the  religious  element,  is  now 
passing  before  us,  revealing  its  varied  "species  "  oi ceremonial 
purifications,  with  all  the  varieties  oi  sprinklings  (water,  blood, 
ashes),  and  of  washings  (body,  feet,  hands);  and  of  spiritual  pu- 
rifications, mediate  (water  imbued  with  divine  power,  martyr 
blood,  flaming  sword),  and  immediate,  (Holy  Spirit.) 

These  are  only  some  of  the  "Multa  genera  baptismatum" 
which  make  up  that  wide  "  Class,"  characterized  by  thorough 
change  of  condition.  They  are  suflicient  to  sustain  the  position, 
"Baptism  is  not  one,"  and  to  show  that  its  contradictory 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE.  227 

*' Baptism  is  one,"  is  a  position  neither  proven  nor  prova- 
ble. Classic  Baptism  is  right  when  it  sajs,  "Baptism  is  a 
myriad-sided  word." 

^^  Baptism  by  loaier  and  the  Holy  Spirit.'^  Ambrose  pro- 
ceeds to  cite  some  particular  kinds  of  baptism,  in  order  to 
sustain  his  assertion  that  "Baptism  is  not  one."  I  do  not 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  this  baptism.  It  is  not  within  my 
present  plan  so  to  do.  I  only  observe,  as  to  its  distinctive 
character:  1.  It  does  not  belong  to  the  class  of  mere  symbol 
baptisms;  it  eif'ects  a  spiritual  purification.  2.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  manner  of  using  the  water,  its  position 
in  the  baptism  is  that  of  agency.  The  ^^ power''  to  effect  the 
baptism  is  with  the  water.  It  is  not  a  recipient  element. 
This  is  the  Patristic  view. 

"  Baptisma  passionis."  The  baptism  of  passion,  or  of  cruci- 
fixion, experienced  by  our  adorable  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  is  declared  by  Ambrose  to  be  another  kind  of  bap- 
tism from  that  just  mentioned,  namely,  Baptism  by  water 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  have  thus  specific  examples  fur- 
nished to  illustrate  the  general  statement,  "Baptism  is  not 
one."  What,  now,  is  the  unity,  or  what  are  the  unities, 
which  make  both  baptisms;  and  what  the  diversity  or  diver- 
sities which  make  them  baptisms  not  of  the  same  kind  ? 

1.  ^5  io  the  forms  of  act.  In  the  one  case,  it  is  applying 
water  to  the  body  in  varying  forms,  and  "the  operation"  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  soul;  in  the  other  case,  it  is  striking 
with  a  hammer  and  thrusting  with  a  spear.  2.  As  to  the  agen- 
cies. In  the  former  case  it  is  water  impregnated  with  a  di- 
vine power,  in  the  latter  case  it  is  the  agonies  of  the  cross. 
3.  As  to  the  results.  In  the  first  case  there  is  a  wetting  of  the 
body  and  (supposedly)  a  purification  of  the  soul;  in  the  last 
case  there  is  a  penal  death,  "  the  just  for  the  unjust."  There 
is  no  unity  in  the  forms  of  the  act,  none  in  the  nature  of  the 
agency,  none  in  the  characters  of  the  result.  There  is  neither 
a  dipping  nor  a  covering  to  be  found  whereby  they  can  be 
interlinked.  Why  then  have  they  the  common  name  of  bap- 
tism ?  I  answer,  because  a  baptism  is  never  dependent  upon 
any  specific  form  of  action,  upon  any  specific  nature  in  the 


228  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

instrumentality,  or  npon  any  specific  character  in  the  result; 
but  is  the  production  of  any  act,  or  of  any  agency,  which  is 
capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  condition  of  its  object. 
Friends  and  rejecters  of  the  dipping  theory  will  alike  ad- 
mit, that  the  sinner  baptized  with  water  impregnated  with 
divine  influence,  had  (according  to  the  Patristic  faith)  there- 
by his  moral  condition  thoroughly  changed.  And  all  will, 
equally,  acknowledge  that  the  "baptism  of  passion"  thor- 
oughly changed  the  condition  of  the  Sutterer  in  his  relations 
to  the  law,  having  forever  satisfied  its  claims;  and  his  rela- 
tions to  his  people,  being  now  and  thus,  now  in  fact,  thus 
"from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  the  slain  Lamb  of  God, 
able  to  take  away  their  sins;  as  well  as  his  own  personal 
condition,  changing  his  condition  of  life  into  a  condition  of 
death,  on  which  changed  condition  all  else  hung  suspended. 
By  the  power  of  this  central  truth,  we  fling  ofl:'  those  alien 
elements,  "dipping"  and  "covering,"  while  we  bring  into 
order  and  harmony  all  those  multiplied  diversities  which 
enter  into  the  "  multa  genera  baptismaium.'^ 

The  theory  has  ever  stumbled  at  the  unity  and  charity  in- 
culcated by  the  cross,  and  has  thus  been  deservedly  "  broken ;" 
the  baptism  of  the  cross  now  falls  upon  it,  and  it  is  "ground 
to  powder."  And  so  perish,  speedily,  all  error  wiiich  sepa- 
rates the  people  of  God! 

Before  leaving  this  case  of  baptism,  I  would  call  attention 
to  the  form  and  force  of  the  phrase  "Baptisma  passionis." 
AVhat  is  the  grammatical  and  logical  relation  between  these 
two  words?  Very  few,  perhaps  none,  will  difter  in  their 
answer  to  this  question.  For  that  very  reason  it  is  desirable 
to  raise  it  now,  as  we  shall  meet  with  it  hereafter,  when  out- 
side influences  may  cause  more  embarrassment  in  its  deter- 
mination. 

The  only  point  to  be  settled,  is  the  character  of  the  geni- 
tive. Is  it  subjective  ov  objective?  Is  the  bajitism  produced 
by  "passion,"  as  its  source,  or  has  baptism  "passion"  for 
its  end  ?  If  there  should  be  any  hesitancy  in  answering  this 
inquiry,  aid  may,  perhaps,  be  found  in  referring  to  a  similar 
phrase,  which  has  already  been  before  us:  "Baptisma  con- 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   FLAMING   SWORD.  229 

fessionis."  JSTone,  I  presume,  will  regard  "confession"  as 
the  end  of  Martyr  baptism;  but  all  will  say,  Martyrdom  pro- 
ceeds from  "  confession."  In  other  words,  the  case  is  a  geni- 
tive subjective,  and  not  objective.  The  similar  phrase,  "  Bap- 
tisma  passionis,"  should,  unquestionably,  be  determined  in 
the  same  manner.  The  atoning  sorrows  of  the  blessed  Re- 
deemer on  the  cross,  were  the  source  whence  his  baptism 
came,  not  the  end  to  which  it  tended.  "  Passion  "  baptized 
the  atoning  Redeemer  into  death. 

I  pass  over  this  amazing  baptism,  now,  as  lightly  as  its 
presentation  by  Ambrose  will  allow.  Its  consideration  will 
demand  a  most  central  position  when  we  come  to  speak  of 
Christian  Baptism. 

Baptism  of  the  Flaming  Sword. — A  third  baptism,  diflering 
from  the  other  two,  is  adduced  to  sustain  the  same  general 
position,  "Baptism  is  not  one."  This  is  a  baptism  which 
takes  place  at  the  gates  of  Paradise. 

When  Aaron  was  baptized  by  Moses  at  the  door  of  the 
congregation.  Dr.  Carson  insisted  that  it  must  be  by  im- 
mersion. If  Ambrose  had  merely  said  :  "  There  is,  also,,  a 
baptism  at  the  entrance  of  Paradise,"  or,  if  those  words  only 
had  come  down  to  us  without  any  explanation  as  to  the  quo 
modo  of  the  baptism,  this  thrice  honest  believer  in  dipping 
would  have  gone  to  the  stake  sooner  than  he  would  have 
admitted,  that  there  was  or  could  be  any  other  than  a  dip- 
ping baptism.  He  would  have  asked,  in  triumph,  "  Is  there 
not  a  river  flowing  in  the  Paradise  of  God?  And  if  one 
be  not  enough,  where  are  the  Pison,  and  the  Gihou,  and 
the  Hiddekel,  and  the  Euphrates?"  Fortunately,  however, 
more  has  been  told  us  concerning  it;  and  it  appears  that 
there  was  no  dipping,  no  covering,  no  v^'ater,  in  the  transac- 
tion.    The  baptism  was  by  a  ^'■Flaming  Sword." 

Had  the  statement  been  merely,  that  the  baptism  was 
by  tire,  all  that  entered  Paradise  would  have  been  very 
promptly  dipped  into  the  fire;  but,  alas  !  the  statement  is 
"a  fiery  sword;"  and  how  shall  the  seekers  of  Paradise  be 
dipped  into  a  sioord  ?  I  am  sure  I  cannot  tell ;  but  I  am 
just  as  sure  that  the  theory  will  cut  out,  to  order,  an  ex- 


230  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

planation  so  plain  that  "any  child  can  see  it;"  and  if,  per- 
chance, an}'  man  should  fail  to  do  so,  it  must  be  because  "he 
has  no  soul  for  rhetoric."  Perhaps  the  device  will  be,  that 
the  strokes  of  the  sword,  descending  and  ascending,  (like 
the  flooding  and  the  ebbing  tide,)  shall  "  beautifully  repre- 
sent a  c/?"/>pm<7 ;"  while  in  "turning  every  way,"  its  strokes 
come  down  before,  behind,  right,  left,  above,  betoken  a 
rushing  torrent  and  a  covering  flood;  and  what  could  be 
more  plain  than  that,  (as  the  sword  is  the  image  of  death, 
and  burial  is  involved  in  death,  while  entering  Paradise  is 
proof  of  a  resurrection,)  we  have  "death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection" as  well  as  a  dipping  and  a  covering?  AVho  will 
not  justify  the  theorist  in  saying,  (while  standing  at  the  gates 
of  Paradise  with  the  whole  truth  of  baptism  made  luminous 
by  "  the  Flaming  Sword,")  that  he  who  will  not  accept  its 
strokes  for  "  dipping,"  its  flashes  for  "  covering,"  its  emblem- 
atic character  for  "death  and  burial,"  and  the  Paradise  it 
guards  for  "resurrection,"  "  compels  our  charity  to  struggle 
against  the  conviction  which  forces  itself  upon  us,  that  upon 
this  subject  it  is  not  light  that  is  most  wanted,  but  religious 
honesUj."     (Carson,  xxxvii.) 

Some  may  hesitate  to  receive  these  fruits  of  a  warm  imagi- 
nation because  they  leave  out  of  view  the  baptism  of  Am- 
brose— the  eradication  of  sin  which  prepares  for  entrance 
through  the  gate  into  Paradise;  and  because  they  have  failed 
to  show  how  the  "  dippings  "  of  a  swordblade  would  flt  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven;  to  do  which  thing  this  baptism  was 
Patristically  got  up. 

Others  may  object,  that  the  exposition  does  not  tally  with 
the  illustration  given  by  Origen  of  the  cancer,  with  the  knife 
and  the  cautery  burning  its  roots.  This  suits  well  with  the 
idea  of  a  baptism  which  cflcctually  purities  the  soul;  but  not 
so  well  with  a  water  dipping  or  with  a  flood  covering.  All 
this  may  be  true;  but  then,  Ambrose  and  Origen  may  not 
know  what  a  baptism  is,  (not  having  yet  gone  to  school  at 
Tubbermorc;)  or,  they  may  not  have  known  what  sort  of 
baptism  they  had  in  their  own  minds,  and  so  may  liave 
blundered  in  its  explication.     At  any  rate  there  is  so  much 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   FLAMING   SWORD.  231 

of  simplicity  and  good  sense  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection of  Noah  in  the  ark,  of  Israel  in  the  dried-up  sea,  and 
of  the  Apostles  in  the  sound  like  wind,  that  we  can  feel  little 
disposition  to  yield  anything  to  these  Patrists,  as  against 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  in  the  Flaming  Sword ! 

In  any  case,  however,  there  is  much  to  justify  the  state- 
ment, that  as  a  baptism  it  is  not  quite  like  either  of  tlie  other 
two.  And  it  is  hard  to  resist  the  conclusion,  that  the  theory 
is  certainly  scorched,  if  not  burned  up,  by  contact  with  the 
Flaming  Sword. 

I  need  hardly  say,  that  inasmuch  as  the  Patrists  attribute 
to  the  sword,  in  its  cutting  character  and  in  its  tiery  element, 
a  doubly  purifying  power,  fully  competent  under  divine  con- 
trol to  accomplish  its  mission — thoroughly  to  change  the 
condition  of  those  seeking  admission  into  Paradise — it  meets, 
in  the  most  perfect  manner,  that  which  we  chi,im  to  be  the 
true  and  only  essential  characteristic  of  a  baptism. 

"  The  Great  Bapiizer." 

Not  the  least  important  part  of  this  interpretation  relates 
to  the  baptizer  at  the  gates  of  Paradise.  This  is  of  so  much 
importance  that  Ambrose,  himself,  raises  the  question  : 
"Who  is  it  that  baptizes  by  this  fire?"  And  he  gives  the 
answer:  "He  of  whom  John  said,  'He  shall  baptize  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  by  fire.' "  To  this  person  is  given  the  title  of 
"the  Great  Baptizer."  Now  the  question  arises.  Why  was 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  called  "  the  Great  Baptizer?"  We  pro- 
pound this  question  to  the  theorists  and  await  their  answer. 

Is  it  replied  by  some  one  more  zealous  than  thoughtful, 
"You  must  not  obscure  the  truth  by  using  untranslated 
words.  He  is  called  '  the  Great  Dipper,^  because  he  dipped 
80  many  into  the  water."  To  such  speech  enough  of  his 
dipping  friends  will  say :  "Don't  speak  so  fast;  you  blunder; 
Christ  never  dipped  into  water."  He  might,  however,  re- 
spond :  "  I  thought  that  baptize  always  meant  to  dip,  and  if 
he  is  'the  Great  Dipper'  and  did  not  dip  into  luatcr,  what 
did  he  dip  into  ?"  "Well,  perhaps  it  means.  He  dipped  into 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  fire."    Here  let  me  interpose  a  word 


232  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

and  say,  1.  This  latter  baptism  cannot  now  be  discussed  on 
its  merits,  because  oat  of  place.  2.  The  answer,  as  to  the 
reason  of  this  title,  must  be  such  as  will  meet  the  views  of 
him  who  gives  the  title,  not  of  him  who  undertakes  to  ex- 
pound it.  And  the  reason  assigned  will  not  answer;  for 
Ambrose  no  more  believed  that  the  Lord  Jesus  dipjSed  men 
into  the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  fire,  than  he  believed  that  he 
dipped  them  into  water.  It  is  no  sentiment  of  the  Patrists, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  receiving  element  into  which  men 
are  to  be  dipped  whether  literally  or  tigurativel}^;  on  the  con- 
trary, He  is  always  represented  as  an  agent  operating  on  the 
soul  and  so  baptizing  it.  It  is  the  purest  absurdity  to  attribute 
to  Ambrose  the  giving  of  a  title  grounded  on  the  abundant 
doing  of  that  wdiich  he  did  not  believe  was  ever  done  at  all. 
And  as  for  "  dipping  into  fire,"  it  may  be  observed,  1.  The 
use  of  the  preposition  in  by  no  means  determines  any  such 
idea;  for  it  is  most  freely  used  in  Patristic  writings  with  the 
instrument.  2.  The  instrument  is  used  subsequently  with- 
out any  preposition.  3.  The  fire,  here,  was  not  of  a  nature 
to  allow  of  a  dipping  into  it.  4.  It  is  expressly  stated  that 
the  act  accomplishing  the  baptism  was  not  a  dipping  into  the 
flaming  sword,  but  by  leaving  it.  Let  it  be  remembered, 
that  we  are  interpreting  an  expression  not  of  somebody  else 
taken  up  by  Ambrose,  and  which  has  a  value  extrinsic  to 
him,  but  an  expression  which  originates  wnth  himself;  and 
which,  consequently,  must  be  interpreted  by  his  own  senti- 
ments as  bearing  upon  it.  And  in  view  of  them  we  say, 
the  title  "Great  Dipper"  never  originated  from  any  notion 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  dipped  into  fire.  But  supposing  that 
there  was  such  a  phrase  as  "dipping  into  the  Holy  Ghost," 
which  there  is  not,  and  "dipping  into  fire,"  which  there  is 
not,  still  every  one  not  demented  must  admit  that  there  is,  in 
fact,  no  dipping  in  such  expressions.  Here,  then,  arises  the 
question.  How  could  the  title  of  a  "Dipper"  be  taken  out  of 
phrases  in  which  no  dipi)ing  exists,  in  fact,  to  be  conferred 
on  one  who  never  dips  ?  Is  not  the  whole  thing,  (as  is  usual 
with  such  explanations  under  the  theory,)  full,  from  first  to 
last,  of  conceptions  untenable  and  unreasonable? 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   FLAMING   SWORD.  233 

But  this  title,  "the  Great  Baptizer,"  given  by  Ambrose 
to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  means  something,  nay,  must  mean 
very  much.  What  is  it?  If  some  votary  of  the  wine  cup 
were  to  call  Bacchus  "the  Great  Baptizer,"  would  not  the 
interpretation  "Great  Dipper"  be  regarded  as  a  great  joke? 
And  would  not  "  Great  coverer  over"  prove  them  tipsy  who 
gave  such  title  ?  Could  it  mean  anything  else,  in  such  rela- 
tion, than  ''the  Great  drunkard  maker f"  Would  not  every 
native-born  Greek  so  understand  it  ? 

But  what  this  title  means  as  applied  to  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  (now  given  for  the  first  time  and,  so  far  as  I  remem- 
ber, never  employed  but  on  this  occasion,)  we  must  learn 
from  the  character  of  him  who  bears  it,  and  from  the  cir- 
cumstances and  tenor  of  the  context  out  of  which  it  origi- 
nates. It  would  be  most  irrational  to  suppose  otherwise, 
as  it  would  be  irrational  to  introduce  into  the  text,  to  con- 
trol the  interpretation,  any  other  element  than  that  which 
is  already  there.  Neither  water  nor  wine,  not  water  any 
more  than  wine,  has  any  place  in  the  interpretation. 

What  is  the  ruling  thought  of  the  passage?  Is  it  not 
purification  ?  Is  not  purification  inseparable  from  Paradise  ? 
Is  not  "  the  flaming  sword  "  placed  at  the  gateway  to  prevent 
the  introduction  of  impurity  ?  Is  not  "  the  sword  and  the  fire  " 
represented  as  possessed  of  purifying  power  ?  Are  not  souls 
represented  as  seeking  to  enter  Paradise,  and  yet  "with 
some  lighter  sins"  which  still  require  purification?  Is  not 
the  Lord  Jesus,  here  and  everywhere  in  connection  with 
baptism,  represented  as  a  Purifier?  Does  he  not  take  the 
flaming  sword  for  the  purpose  of  purifying  completely,  those 
"on  his  right  hand?"  Does  he  not  do  it,  and  in  so  doing, 
give  them  welcome  into  that  Paradise  within  which  "  nothing 
that  defileth  "  can  enter  ?  And  is  he  not,  in  view  of  all  this, 
and  because  of  all  this,  called  "  the  Great  Baptizer?"  The 
interpretation,  I  repeat,  must  be  gathered  from  the  passage. 
In  that  passage  there  is  not  the  remotest  hint  of  a  dipping 
or  a  covering;  and  to  introduce  them  as  expounding  ele- 
ments is  "  a  folly  to  be  punished  by  the  judges."  It  might 
as  well  be  said,  that  nobility  and  a  title  taken  from  the  field 


234  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

of  battle  aiul  conferred  upon  a  victorious  soldier,  must  be 
expounded  by  reasons  sought  in  the  four  corners  of  the 
earth  and  not  in  that  hardfought  field — its  prisoners  taken, 
its  cannon  captured,  opposing  standards  stricken  down — 
as  to  say  that  the  title  given  by  Ambrose,  in  view  of  the 
great  work  accomplished  on  earth  and  at  the  gates  of  Para- 
dise, was  not  to  be  expounded  by  that  work.  Thus  ex- 
pounded, "the  Great  Baptizer"  can  mean  nothing  but  "the 
Great  Purifier,"  and  we  ofler  it  to  Dr.  Carson  as  an  addi- 
tional case  where  it  cannot  mean  the  Great  Dipper  I 

I  say  Dipper  and  not  Immerser,  because  I  enter  an  impera- 
tive denial  of  the  right  of  any  under  the  dipping  theory  to 
make  use  of  immerse  or  of  any  of  its  derivatives,  so  long  as 
they  identify  dip  and  /5a;rr:tw,  When  they  reject  this  error 
we  will  cheerfully  give  them  the  benefit  of  it,  and  will  hold 
them  to  other  responsibilities. 

In  the  meanwhile  we  must  affirm,  that  the  two  words,  dip 
and  immerse,  difl^'er  essentially.  Their  power  differs  widely, 
deeply,  universally;  their  relations  to  words  and  thoughts 
differ;  their  development,  from  primary  thought,  exhibits 
the  same  continued  and  magnified  diflerence.  If  these  state- 
ments are  not  true,  let  their  error  be  shown.  If  they  are 
not  disproved,  is  it  rational  to  suppose  that,  in  a  discussion 
turning  on  these  diflferences,  these  terms  can  be  allowed  to 
be  tossed  about,  at  will,  as  may  suit  the  pleasure  or  ends  of 
one  of  the  parties?  If  the  friends  of  the  theory  have  grown 
distrustful  of  dip,  and  think  that  immerse  can  do  them  more 
valiant  service,  let  them  frankly  confess  their  change  of 
ground,  and  stick  to  it  idih  all  its  consequences,  and  no  one 
will  impose  upon  them  their  once  trusted,  but,  at  length, 
discarded  favorite.  But  until  this  is  done,  w^e  cannot  allow 
a  wdjite  horse  and  a  black  horse  to  be  imposed  upon  us  as 
matches. 

ORIGEN. 

What  does  the  Great  Baptizer  baptize  ? 

When  the  theorists  have  been  hard  pressed  with  the  evi- 
dence against  the  dippings  of  the  priests  in  Judaic  baptisms, 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   FLAMING   SWORD.  235 

they  have  answered:  "Parts  of  the  sacrificial  victims,  or  tlie 
utensils,  may  have  been  dipped,  and  such  dippings  would 
account  for  its  being  said  that  there  were  baptisms  in  the 
temple  service."  Dr.  Halley  says  that  he  is  not  satisfied 
with  the  fitness  of  this  ans\\'er,  but  as  he  cannot  disprove 
the  existence  of  such  dippings,  or  demonstrate  their  incon- 
gruity with  the  baptisms  designed,  he  will  not  press  the 
argument. 

This  attempt  to  save  the  theory  in  the  face  of  condemning 
facts,  by  the  supposition  of  some  rhetorical  speech,  or  extra- 
ordinary figure,  or  some  possible  fact,  is  characteristic  of  the 
believers  in  "dipping,  and  nothing  but  dipping."  Every 
one  who  gives  attention  to  the  subject  will,  at  once,  be  aware 
what  facilities  are  at  hand,  by  large  drafts  on  rhetoric,  figure, 
imagination,  and  the  rich  storehouse  of  possibilities,  for 
throwing  back  a  secondary  meaning  on  the  primary,  by  one 
who  is  disposed,  at  all  hazards,  to  reject  a  secondary  sense. 
To  demonstrate  the  impossibility  of  the  primary  sense  against 
all  these,  lawful  and  unlawful  modifying  and  coloring  ap- 
pliances, so  as  to  compel  the  assent  of  a  determined  and 
thoroughly  committed  opponent,  is  a  difficult  if  not  imprac- 
ticable task.  The  theorists  take  this  double  position  :  1.  ISTo 
second  meaning  to  /Sa-ntw,  dip  and  nothing  but  dip.  2.  No 
surrender,  except  to  blank  impossibility  of  such  meaning, 
after  the  exhaustion  of  all  conceivable  opposing  appliances. 

A  rule  in  itself  may  not  be  an  improper  one,  but  the  inter- 
pretation of  evidence  under  it  may  be  very  exceptionable. 
Dr.  Carson,  who  lays  down  this  law  for  the  opponents  of 
the  theory,  refuses  to  govern  his  own  action  by  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  which  he  would  bind  on  others.  In 
adducing  evidence  for  a  secondary  meaning  to  f^d-rm^  there 
is  not  a  case  brought  forward  in  proof,  which  could  endure 
a  single  stroke  from  the  machinery  which  he  gets  up  to  batter 
down,  or  undermine,  or  overtop,  or  circumvent,  or  blow  up, 
whatever  sustains  a  secondary  meaning  of  /SaTrrt'^w. 

I  make  no  protest  against  the  rule;  but  I  do  protest  against 
an  insane  judgment  of  the  rule,  or  of  evidence  under  the  rule. 

Proof,  to  the  full  of  all  rational  requirement,  under  the 


236  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

rule  has  already  been  repeated!}'  presented.  We  have  such 
testimony  renewed ly  furnished  by  the  extract  from  Origeu, 
and  which  I  now  present :  "Igitur  defert  utrumque  Salvator, 
gladium  et  ignem,  et  baptizat  qu^e  non  potuerunt  Spiritus 
Sancti  purilicatione  purgari."  —  "Therefore,  the  Saviour 
brings  forth  both  the  sword  and  the  tire,  and  baptizes  ichat 
{defilemeiits,  faults,  sins)  could  not  be  purged  by  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

The  argument  from  this  passage  is:  1.  "The  purification 
of  the  Holy  Spirit"  is,  in  Patristic  conception,  baptism  bi/ 
icater  impregnated  with  the  quality  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and 
the  object  of  this  baptism,  as  stated,  is  to  baptize  the  pol- 
lutions of  the  soul;  therefore  baptize  cann-ot  mean  to  dip, 
because  "pollutions"  cannot  be  dipped.  But,  no  doubt,  this 
argument,  though  clear  as  the  sun,  will  be  "puffed  at,"  on 
the  ground  of  the  use  of  the  phrase  "purification  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  being  used  instead  of  the  word  baptize.  Well, 
then,  as  I  do  not  believe  in  charging  people  with  "  wanting 
Christian  honesty  more  than  wanting  light,"  (though  they  may 
appear  to  me  to  be  madly  set  upon  a  theory,)  we  will  pass 
out  of  the  light  of  one  sun  into  the  light  of  seven  suns. 

2.  Origen,  through  his  translator  Jerome,  both  of  unim- 
peachable authority,  gives  us  in  the  former  part  of  the  sen- 
tence, totidem  Uteris,  the  very  word — baj)tizat.  The  objection, 
then,  on  the  ground  of  the  absence  of  the  word,  is  at  an  end. 
Now,  as  to  the  meaning  in  which  the  word  is  used.  What 
was  baptized?  Priests,  Levites,  disciples?  No.  "Shoulders, 
breasts,  legs  of  sacrificial  victims  ?"  No.  "Basins,  pots,  uten- 
sils of  any  kind?"  No.  What  then?  Dejilements,  faidts,  sins, 
"which  could  not  be  purged  by  the  purification  b}*  the  Holy 
Spirit."  Now  test  tlie  primary  meaning  attributed  to  i^aTtzi^io^ 
(to  dip,)  by  the  case,  and  we  have :  "  Therefore  the  Saviour 
brings  forth  both  sword  and  fire,  and  dips  what  {defilemmts^ 
faults,  sins)  could  not  be  purged  by  the  purification  of  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

Is  it  a  possibility,  or  an  impossibility,  to  dip  "  delilements, 
faults,  and  sins?"  Is  it  a  possibility,  or  an  impossibility,  to 
dip  such  things  by  "sword  and  fire?" 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   FLAMING   SWORD.  237 

If  any  friend  of  the  theory  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  or 
America,  (whom  a  jury  under  a  writ  de  limatico  shall  pro- 
nounce sane),  will  declare  that  it  is  possible  "  to  dip  defile- 
ments, faults,  and  sins,"  then  I  will  give  up  the  case,  and 
pray  that  a  like  writ  be  taken  out  for  myself;  for  if  such  a 
one  be  not  demented,  I  must  be.  The  passage  furnishes 
an  experimentum  crucis  for  the  theory.  If  Origen  (the  most 
learned  and  the  most  voluminous  Greek  writer  of  his  day,) 
understood  Greek;  if  Jerome  (thoroughly  taught  in  the 
Greek  Classics  before  he  became  a  Christian,)  understood 
Greek;  if  these  most  learned  men  had  any  just  understanding 
of  what  they  themselves  wrote;  then,  the  theory  is  brought 
face  to  face  with  a  case  of  usage  in  which  the  meaning  "to 
dip,"  is  an  absolute  impossibility. 

That  the  force  of  this  evidence  may  be  felt,  if  possible, 
yet  more  deeply,  I  will  quote  an  analogous  case  adduced  by 
President  Ilalley,  {Sacraments,  i,  454,)  as  the  highest  possible 
proof  to  determine  a  secondary  meaning  for  /3a-rw. 

"  Although  Dr.  Carson  has  said  enough  to  satisfy  his 
brethren  that  fidn-ci}  has  to  dye  as  a  secondary  meaning,  he 
has  not,  I  think,  produced  the  most  decisive  evidence  which 
the  idiom  of  the  language  supplies.  The  best  proof  of  a  com- 
2)leie  change  of  the  meaning,  is  a  corresponding  change  of  the  syn- 
tax accommodating  itself  to  the  deflection  of  sense.  ...  In  the 
phrases  to  dip  the  w^ool,  and  to  stain  the  wool,  the  syntax  is 
the  same.  But  if  the  syntax  is  so  varied  as  to  make  not  the 
thing  colored,  but  the  color  itself,  the  object  of  the  verb, — as 
when  we  sny  to  dye  a  imrple, — the  secondary  sense  has  then 
renounced  all  dependence  upon  the  primary,  and  established 
itself  by  a  new  law  of  syntax,  enacted  by  usage  to  secure  its 
undisturbed  possession.  .  .  .  This  is  illustrated  by  the  pas- 
sage inv  zi  Tt(;  aXXa  ypwiiaza  jSa-Trj^  idv  ri  y.dX  rauza.     *  ^JV^h ether  any 

one  dye  other  colors  or  these  also.'  Here  xpcop-a  has  gained 
in  the  syntax  the  place  of  the  material  subjeoted  to  the  pro- 
cess; and  therefore  pleads  a  law  of  language  that  ^d-zM  in 
the  passage  does  not,  and  cannot  mean  to  dip,  as  the  color 
cannot  be  dipped,  whatever  may  be  done  with  the  wool. 
Another  case  is  found  in  Lucian  [Cynic,  i).  1106),  ol  zijv  Tzop. 


238  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

(popw^  i3dzT(ryT£<;,  'those  d3'eing  (he  imrple.-  This  syntax  I  hold 
to  be  demonstrative  of  a  secondaiy  meaning," 

Professor  "Wilson,  Royal  College,  Belfast,  speaking  of  this 
principle  and  its  value  as  testimony  to  a  secondary  mean- 
ing, says :  "  That  /9«-rw  denotes  to  dye,  without  regard  to 
mode,  and  even  where  immersion  is  in  terms  excluded,  the 
preceding  examples  place  beyond  the  pale  of  candid  dispu- 
tation. There  remains,  however,  an  additional  clement  of 
proof,  %vhich,  if  not  more  convincing  in  its  nature,  is  at  least 
calculated  to  afford  higher  gratification  to  the  mind  of  the 
true  philologist.  We  allude  to  the  interesting  fact,  that  the 
secondary  meaning,  instead  of  hanging  loosely  on  the  out- 
skirts of  clauses  and  sentences,  has  seized  upon  their  most 
intimate  connections,  and  entered  deeply  into  the  structural 
fabric  of  the  Greek  language.  As  Dr.  Ilalley,  so  far  as  we 
are  aware,  was  the  first  to  direct  public  attention  to  the  ex- 
istence and  value  of  this  branch  of  evidence,  we  shall  present 
in  his  own  words  the  statement  and  illustration  of  its  char- 
acter." 

We  have  here  the  testimony  of  two  most  competent  wit- 
nesses to  the  principle,  that  a  radical  change  in  the  syntax 
is  the  highest  proof  of  a  radical  change  in  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  This  principle  w-as  not  enunciated  to  meet  a 
controversial  exigency.  The  Baptists  had  already  accepted 
a  secondary  meaning  to  par.ru).  It  may,  therefore,  be  re- 
ceived without  suspicion,  and  acknowledged  as  a  universal 
principle  ingrained  in  the  elements  of  language. 

We  can  say,  dip  wool,  but  we  cannot  say,  dip  j^^frple,  and 
use  the  verb  in  the  same  sense  in  both  cases;  for  "  purple" 
is  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be  insusceptible  of  the  action  of 
which  "  wool "  is  the  object.  The  syntax,  therefore,  is  proof 
of  a  change  of  meaning.  Wool  may  be  dipped;  purple  can, 
only,  be  di/ed. 

So  we  may  Say,  dip  (supposing  this  to  be,  as  claimed,  the 
meaning  of  /?«—£'>)  the  sinKer;  but  we  cannot  say,  dip  the 
sin,  and  use  the  word  in  the  same  sense,  because  "sin,"  by 
its  nature,  does  not  admit  of  being  dipped.  But  Origen  does 
say  that  the  Lord  Jesus  dips  (baptizes)  sins,  (represented 


BAPTISM   BY   A   COAL   OF  FIRE.  239 

in  "quae");  it  follows,  therefore,  by  a  necessity  of  the  laws 
of  language,  that  he  uses  the  verb  in  such  case  with  a  sec- 
ondary meaning.  Sins  may  hQ  purged;  they  cannot  be  dip- 
ped. If  proof  needed  to  be  heaped  on  proof,  it  would  be 
found  in  the  means  used  for  this  dipping  by  the  Great  Bap- 
tizer;  "  sword  and  fire"  can  no  more  dip,  than  "  sins"  can  be 
dipped  by  them.  "  Sword  and  fire"  can  p)urg€;  sins  can  be 
purged;  the  Great  Baptizer  does  purge;  and  ^a-ziXm  means 

TO   PURGE. 

The  theory  perishes  by  the  Flaming  Sword  in  the  hands 
of  the  True  as  well  as  "  the  Great  Baptist." 


BAPTISM  BY  A  COAL  OF  FIKE. 
Isaiah  6 : 5-7. 

"Then  said  I,  "Woe  is  me !  for  I  am  undone;  because  I  am  a 
man  of  unclean  lips  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a  people  of  un- 
clean lips:  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts. 

"Then  flew  one  of  the  Seraphim  unto  me,  having  a  live  coal 
in  his  band,  which  he  had  taken  with  the  tongs  from  off  the 
altar : 

"And  he  laid  it  upon  my  mouth  and  said,  Lo,  this  hath 
touched  thy  lips ;  and  thine  iniquity  is  taken  away,  and  thy  sin 
is  purged." 

Inierpreiaiion. 

"Lege  mandata  Legis,  et  invenies  scriptum  :  Quia  vivejis  si 
mortuum  contigerit,  inquinatur  (Numb.  19  :  11).  .  .  .  Indigemus 
ergo  purgatione,  quia  tetigimus  mortuos  (Numb.  19  :  1).  ,  .  . 
Omnes  contigimus  mortuum.  Quis  enim  gloriabitur  castum  se 
habere  cor,  aut  quis  audebit  dicere  mundum  se  a  peccatis  ?  Sit 
aliquis  fortasse  qui  in  sermone  non  deliquerit  ....  tamen  in 
medio  peccatorum  vcrsatur,  necesse  habet  etiam  ipse  purificari. 
Unde  Esaias,  cum  dixisset  (6  :  5-7),  statim  desceudit  unum  de 
Seraphim,  et  contigit  labia  ejus  carbone,  et  immunda  ejus  labia 
mundaret. 

"14.  Non  unum  est  baptismum." 

"  Eead  the  commandments  of  the  Law,  and  you  will  find  it 
written, —  Whosoever  shall  touch  the  dead,  becomes  defiled  (Numb. 


240  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

19  :  11).  .  .  .  Therefore  Ave  need  purgation,  because  we  have 
touched  the  dead  (Xumb.  19:1).  .  .  .  We  all  touch  the  dead. 
For  who  will  boast  that  he  keeps  his  heart  pure,  or  who  will 
dare  to  say  that  he  is  clean  from  sins?  There  maybe  some 
one,  possibly,  who  has  not  sinned  in  word,  although  such  a 
one  is  rare,  of  whom  God  may  say,  as  of  holy  Job :  He  has  not 
sinned  with  his  lips  (Job  22  :  10) ;  however,  he  could  not  alwaj^s 
have  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  pure,  the  devil  injects  himself 
into  the  heart  of  man.  Whoever  keeps  constant  and  vigilant 
guard  over  his  heart,  nevertheless  lives  in  the  midst  of  sinners, 
and  even  he  has  need  to  be  purified.  Hence  Esaias,  when  he 
had  said,  (6  :  5-7,)  immediately  one  of  the  Seraphim  came  down 
and  touched  his  lips  with  a  coal,  and  cleansed  his  unclean  lips. 
"14.  Baptism  is  not  one." — Ambrose,  ii,  1126,  1127. 

"Et  sumet  plenum  batillum  carbonibus  ignis  de  altari,  quod 
est  contra  Dominum  (Leviticus  16  :  12).  Legiraus  et  in  Isaia, 
quia  igne  ])urgatur  propheta  per  unum  ex  Seraphim,  quod  mis- 
sum  est  ad  eum,  cum  accepit  forcipe  carbonem  unum  ex  his  qui 
erant  super  altare,  et  contigit  labia  projihetae,  et  dixit:  ^Ecce 
abstuli  iniquitates  tuas.'  Mihi  videntur  raystica  hac  esse,  et  hoc 
indieare,  quod  unicuique  secundum  id  quod  peccat,  si  dignum 
fuerit  purificari  eum,  inferantur  carbones  membris  ejus.  Nam 
quoniam  dicit  propheta  hie:  ^ Immunda  labia  habeo,  in  medio 
quoque  populi  immunda  labia  habentis  habito,'  idcirco  carbo  for- 
cipe assumptus  a  Seraphim,  labia  ejus  mundat,  quibus  solis  se 
niundum  non  esse  profitetur.  .  .  .  Nos  autem,  si  redeat  unus- 
quisque  ad  conscientiam  suam,  nescio  si  possumus  aliquod  mem- 
.brum  corporis  excusare,  quod  non  igni  indigeat." 

"And  he  shall  take  a  censer  full  of  burning  coals  of  fire  from 
off  the  altar  before  the  Lord  (Leviticus  16 :  12).  We  read  also 
in  Isaiah,  that  the  prophet  is  purged  by  fire  by  one  of  the  Sera- 
phim, sent  to  him,  Avhen  he  took  with  the  tongs  a  live  coal  from 
those  which  were  upon  the  altar,  and  touched  the  lips  of  the 
prophet  and  said,  'Behold  I  have  taken  away  tJdne  iniquities.' 
These  things  seem  to  me  to  belong  to  the  mysteries,  and  to  in- 
dicate this,  that  to  every  one  according  to  that  which  he  sins, 
if  he  shall  be  worthy  to  be  purified,  burning  coals  shall  be  put 
upon  his  members.  For  since  the  prophet  says :  '  I  have  unclean 
lips,  also  1  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a  people  of  unclean  lips,'  there- 
fore, a  live  coal  having  been  taken  by  the  Seraphim  with  tongs, 


BAPTISM   BY  A   COAL   OF  FIRE.  241 

he  purifies  his  lips,  by  which  only  he  professes  himself  to  be  not 
clean.  .  .  .  But  we,  if  every  one  would  examine  his  conscience, 
I  know  not  if  we  could  excuse  any  member  of  our  body,  that 
it  should  not  need  the  fire.  ...  I  fear  lest  we  deserve  the  fire  not 
for  particular  members,  but  for  the  whole  body.  .  .  .  All  are 
not  purged  by  that  fire  which  is  taken  from  the  altar.  Aaron 
is  purged  by  that  fire,  and  Isaiah,  and  if  there  are  any  like  them. 
But  others  who  are  not  as  they,  among  whom  I  reckon  myself, 
will  be  purged  by  another  fire.  I  fear  lest  by  that  of  which  it 
is  written  :  'A  fiery  stream  ran  before  him.'  (Dan.  7  :  10.)  This 
fire  is  not  from  the  altar.  The  fire  which  is  from  the  altar  is  the 
fire  of  the  Lord,  but  that  which  is  not  from  the  altar,  is  not  of 
the  Lord,  but  is  of  the  sinner  himself,  concerning  which  it  is  said, 
'  Their  worm  shall  not  die,  and  their  fire  shall  not  be  quenched.' 
(Isaiah  66  :  24.)  Therefore,  this  fire  is  theirs  who  kindled  it.  as  it 
is  elsewhere  written :  'Walk  in  the  light  of  your  fire,  and  in  the 
sparks  that  ye  have  kindled.'  But  his  own  fire  is  not  applied  to 
Isaiah,  but  the  fire  of  the  altar  which  purged  around  his  lips." — 
Origen,  ii,  517,  519. 

Bd-Tiffov  fj.£,  rov  ixOJ-o'^ra  (^aTTTdeiv  zohq  Tzcffzeuovraq  8{  uSazoq,  xal 
Uysufiaro';,  xai  Tzupo';-  udari  dwafiivu)  aTzoizKuvat.  rwv  aij.apriu>v  rov  [iopfiopov 
Uvsu/iaTC,  duvafxivu}  tou'^ ^o'ixou'^,  Tzveu/iaTixuht;  dmpydffaffOai'  T:up},  rze^uxoTi 
xaraxaisiv  Tuq  raJv  dvo;xyj[j.dTwv  dxd\>daq. 

"Baptize  me,  who  am  about  to  baptize  them  that  believe,  by 
water,  and  Spirit,  and  fire;  by  water,  possessing  power  to  wash 
away  the  filth  of  sins;  by  Spirit,  possessing  power  to  make  the 
earthl}^  spiritual;  by  fire,  possessing  a  nature  to  burn  up  the 
thorns  of  transgressions." — Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  x,  1188. 

Zspr/^oq — ov  /j.ezd  ^zkeiffzrjv  jSaadi'Mv  u~ofio'Ajv,  xe^aXij-:  d7:oT()fj.rj  xo?.o<T6r^vat 
Xoyuq  £/i£.  /l«:  yuvauwv  dk  '^llpdiq  ere  xara-fou/xiurj,  zd  [jdizziffixa,  loq  ~ou 
^Tjffh  auzoq,  zu  did  Ttupo'  Xa^uiuaa  zov  jSiuv  i^e?^rj).u6ev. 

"  Serenus — who,  after  the  endurance  of  great  torments,  is  said 
to  have  been  beheaded.  And  of  women,  Herais,  yet  a  catechu- 
men, received  that  baptism  which  is  by  fire,  as  elsewhere  related, 
and  departed  out  of  this  life." — Eusebius,  ii,  532. 

AMBROSE. 

The  purification  from  the  defilement  contracted  by  touch- 
ing a  dead  body,  required  by  the  ceremonial  law,  and  spoken 
16 


242  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

of  by  Jews  and  Patrists  as  a  baptism,  is  here  applied  by  Am- 
brose to  those  who  live  among,  and  become  defiled  by  con- 
tact with  those  who  are  '■''dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  As 
the  one  required  baptism,  so  the  other  required  baptism. 
Special  application  is  made  to  tbe  case  of  Isaiah,  who  con- 
fesses himself  to  be  "a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  to  dwell 
among  a  people  of  unclean  lips."  The  first  baptism  was 
efi^ected  by  the  purifying  power  of  sprinkled  heifer  ashes; 
the  second  baptism  was  etfected  by  the  purifying  power  of  a 
burning  coal.  In  neither  case  is  the  word  baptism  used,  but 
in  both  cases  the  descriptive  terms  identify  with  baptism,  as 
proved  to  be  held  by  Jew  and  Patrist.  To  make  an  argu- 
ment on  the  mere  absence  of  a  word,  as  fatal  to  the  existence 
of  a  baptism,  is  what  no  intelligent  man  will  do.  To  deny 
the  applicability  of  the  terra  baptism  to  a  case  evidently 
made  out  for  such  application,  and  so  used  by  competent 
writers,  because  we  have  not  been  accustomed  to  such  ap- 
plication, is  to  rebel  against  supreme  authority. 

Suppose  a  child  has  advanced  so  far  in  the  knowledge  of 
words  as  to  understand,  among  other  rudimentary  terms, 
the  names  and  application  of  words  to  designate  colors,  and 
bringing  a  handful  of  berries  from  the  garden,  is  told  by  a 
parent,  not  to  eat  them  for  they  are  green.  The  child  looks 
up  in  wonder,  and  exclaims:  "  Surely  they  are  not  'green;' 
they  are  red  all  over."  When  the  answer  is  returned:  "Yes, 
they  arc  'red;'  but  being  6focAberries,  they  are  green  because 
they  are  red.^^  With  what  an  access  of  wonder  and  of  blank 
incredulity  will  the  child  listen  to  all  this.  The  same  hand- 
ful of  berries  are  "red,"  and  "  black,"  and  "green,"  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  What  shall  he  do?  Set  up  his  child- 
knowledge  against  the  knowledge  of  his  parent?  and  the 
testimony  of  his  own  eyes  against  the  testimony  of  his  pa- 
rent? Shall  he  stoutly  affirm,  that  red  berries  cannot  be  black- 
berries;  but  if  red  berries  could  be  blackberries,  certainly 
they  could  not  be  green  berries;  but  if  red  could  be  black, 
or  could  be  green,  most  assuredly  they  could  not  be  red,  and 
black,  and  green!  And  if  father  and  mother  say  so,  "I  will 
order  them  to  go  to  school." 


BAPTISM    BY   A    COAL    OF    FIRE.  243 

The  friends  of  tlie  theory  have  learned,  as  they  suppose, 
that  "  a  baptism  is  a  dipping,  and  nothing  but  a  dipping;"  and 
when  they  are  tokl,  by  Jews,  that  a  baptism  is  eficcted  by 
the  sprinldingof  heifer  ashes;  they  answer,  "It  eannot  be." 
And  when  they  are  told,  by  Gentiles,  that  a  baptism  is  ef- 
fected by  laying  a  burning  coal  upon  the  lips;  they  redouble 
their  cry,  "  It  cannot  possibly  be."  Do  we  not  know  that 
"dipping"  is  baptism?  How  then  can  sjmnJding  be  a  bap- 
tism? But  if  sprinkling  can  be  baptism,  how  is  it  possible 
that  layijig  a  coal  of  fire  on  the  lips  can  be  baptism?  No;  such 
things  cannot  be;  and  "  if  the  Angel  Gabriel,  himself,  were 
to  tell  us  so,  loe  would  order  him  to  school." 

The  point  made  by  this  illustration  is,  not  a  likening  of 
the  knowledge  of  these  ardent  theorists  to  child-knowledge 
— this  would  be  as  untrue  as  it  would  be  unbecoming — but 
it  is  to  show  the  great  embarrassment  and  strong  resistance 
which  any  one  must  make,  when  a  word  has  been  fixed  with 
a  single  and  exclusive  meaning  in  the  mind,  when  that  word 
is  presented  in  circumstances  which  create  meanings  the 
most  opposite  and  inconsistent  with  that  meaning  which  we 
have  believed  to  be  exhaustive  of  the  capabilities  of  the 
word. 

It  is  not  strange,  that  those  who  have  put  unquestioning 
faith  in  Dr.  Carson's  statement,  "My  dissertation  has  forever 
settled  the  meaning  of  /Sarrntw,  if  there  be  truth  in  axioms, 
to  be  dijy,  and  notldng  bid  dip,"  should  be  startled  on  finding 
Josephus  and  Justin,  Clement  and  Chrysostom,  Ambrose 
and  Gregory,  Basil  and  Origen,  and  a  host  of  others,  unite 
in  calling  sprinklings,  pourings,  washings,  coals  of  fire,  flam- 
ing swords,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  agencies  eftecting  baptisms. 

But  what  is  best  to  be  done  under  such  circumstances? 
Is  it  best  still  to  follow  a  leader  who  has  shown  himself  to 
be  utterly  mistaken  as  to  the  meaning  in  question,  and  cry, 
"  To  school,  to  school,  Gabriel!"  or,  to  have  faith  to  believe 
that,  in  some  way  or  other,  (not  apprehended  by  us,)  the 
same  object,  at  the  same  time,  may  be  even  red,  black,  and 
green  ? 

After  Ambrose  had  spoken  of  the  baptism,  by  a  coal  of 


244  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

fire,  without  using  the  word,  he  shows  that  his  mind  was 
full  of  the  thing,  bj  commencing  the  immediately  following 
paragraph  with  the  words,  "Baptism  is  not  one,"  and  intro- 
duces the  baptism  of  the  flaming  sword,  which  has  just  been 
considered,  as  another  illustration  of  fire  baptism.  There 
can  then  be  no  doubt,  that  this  writer  regarded  a  single  coal 
of  fire  as  competent,  not,  certainly,  io  dip,  but  to  baptize — 
purifying  from  defilement  incurred  by  utterances  of  the 
mouth. 

While  such  a  baptism  burns  up  the  theory,  it  does  not 
leave  even  "the  smell  of  fire"  on  the  principle,  that  bap- 
tisms are  effected  by  controlling  influences  without  regard 
to  form  in  the  action,  or  covering  in  the  condition. 


Censer  of  Burning  Coals. — Origen  believed  that  the  censer 
of  burning  coals,  taken  by  the  high  priest  into  the  holy  of 
holies,  and  the  burning  coal  applied  to  Isaiah's  lips,  were  of 
mystical  import.  He  interprets  that  meaning  as  teaching,  a 
baptism  of  fire  applied  to  whatever  member  of  the  body  may 
be  the  caus€  of  defilement  through  transgression.  He  sup- 
poses the  sin  of  the  prophet  to  consist  in  wrong  utterances, 
and  therefore  the  baptizing  power  was  applied  to  the  lips. 
Origen  does  not  teach  that  the  defilement  was  in  the  lips; 
but  the  whole  man  was  defiled  through  the  lips.  Therefore 
he  says,  "  Thy  iniquities  are  taken  away."  So  he  argues 
afterward,  that  any  other  member — eyes,  hands,  feet — that 
should  engage  in  doing  wrong,  and  thus  defile  us,  "would 
need  the  fire."  This  shows,  conclusively,  that  Origen  did 
not  believe  in  the  idea  that  a  baptism  was  limited  to  a  cover- 
ing any  more  than  to  a  dipping;  for  his  doctrine  applied  fire, 
the  baptizing  agency,  to  the  lips,  the  hand,  the  foot,  while  the 
baptism,  the  pjirilying  influence,  extended  througliout  the 
entire  defiled  person.  lie  also  speaks  of  those  who  give 
their  whole  bodies  to  sin,  instead  of  giving  them  to  the 
Lord,  and  of  needing  baptism  by  a  different  fire.  This  fire, 
be  says,  may  be  that  "fiery  stream"  which  was  seen  by 


BAPTISM   BY  A   COAL   OF   FIRE.  245 

Daniel  to  run  before  the  Lord.  But  here  he  says  nothing 
about  dipping  into  this  flowing  fire. 

But  whether  the  theory  will,  in  the  absence  of  informa- 
tion as  to  the  depth  of  this  stream,  think  it  worth  while  (in 
view  of  sprinkling,  and  pouring,  and  sword  baptisms)  to  put 
in  a  plea,  "  if  there  was  a  baptism  the  word  would  prove, 
even  in  a  desert,  that  there  was  enough  water  (fire)  for  a 
dipping,"  or  not,  I  cannot  tell.  I  suppose,  however,  not 
many  would  volunteer  "to  go  dow^n  into  "  the  fiery  stream, 
to  officiate  at  the  dipping.  But  in  what  way  soever  the  bap- 
tism may  have  taken  place  in  this  fire-river,  if  they  were  put 
beneath  the  glowing  flood,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that 
such  a  feature  had  nothing  to  do  (beyond  any  other  accident 
whicb  might  or  might  not  be  present)  in  constituting  the 
baptism.  Origen  most  distinctly  recognizes  as  baptism,  the 
very  limited  application  of  the  fire  to  any  member  of  the 
body.  This  is  his  language:  "I  fear  lest  we  deserve  the  fire 
not  for  particular  members,  but  for  the  whole  body."  Some 
were  baptized  by  fire,  by  a  limited  application,  others  by  a 
general  application.  The  character  of  the  sins  determined 
the  extent  of  application  of  the  fire. 

"  Another  fire.^'  Not  only  was  "  baptism  by  fire  "  a  distinct 
genus  among  baptisms,  but  there  were  varieties  among  fire- 
baptisms.  This  is  distinctly  taught  by  Origen,  in  making  a 
broad  distinction  between  baptism  by  "  fire  from  off"  the 
altar,"  and  that  which  was  by  fire  not  from  the  altar.  The 
first  is  "  fire  of  the  Lord,"  the  last  is  "fire  of  the  sinner." 
Inasmuch  as  these  fires  are  agencies,  and  their  effect  upon 
sin  and  the  sinner  must  depend  upon  their  own  character, 
real  or  putative,  it  is  obvious  that  the  influence  produced  by 
fire  of  the  Lord  and  "fire  of  the  sinner,"  cannot  be  the  same. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  resultant  conditions  (baptisms) 
produced  by  these  alien  influences,  must  be  alien  from  each 
other.  And  this  brings  us  back  again  to  the  loudly-pro- 
claimed truth:  "  Baptism  is  not  one." 

GREGORY   THAUMATURGUS. 

Power  of  Baptism. — The  extract  from  Gregory  Thaumatur- 


246  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

gus,  brings  out  vividly  the  truth  that,  iu  these  secondary 
baptisms,  there  is  no  receiving  element  into  which  the  bap- 
tized object  passes,  but  the  baptism  is  effected  by,  and  exists 
iu  the  effect  of  the  power  belonging  to  the  agency.  This  is 
exhibited  appropriately  by  the  simple  dative.  But  as  this 
case  is  used  in  a  local  (with  preposition)  as  well  as  instru- 
mental sense,  advantage  has  been  taken  of  this  (sometimes 
with  unexampled  violence)  to  insist  on  a  conversion  of  the 
agency  into  a  local  element. 

But  such  mischievous  interpretation  is  effectually  arrested 
by  the  substitution  of  the  genitive  in  the  place  of  the  dative. 
That  is  the  case  here.  The  baptism  is  effected  SI  uduTuq — 
TzvzoiiaToq — -upb^.  There  is  no  possibility  of  transforming  this 
water,  spirit,  Jire,  into  anything  else  than  agency.  Accumu- 
late water  over  the  baptized  object  until  it  is  submerged  five 
hundred  fathom  deep,  and  yet  you  have  made  no  progress 
toward  the  conversion  of  <5£  S(Jaro?  into  ^v  udarc-  let  a  diseased 
imagination  envelop  the  soul  and  body  "in  the  spirit" 
poured  out  and  rising  up  around  it  until  it  out-tops  the 
mountains,  and  Sui  -vtvimroq  is  no  more  i'>  mtuiiazi  than  is  a 
circle  a  square;  deepen  the  fire-river  until  its  bed  rests  on 
the  centre  of  the  globe,  and  dip  the  hapless  sinner  into  its 
lowest  depths,  and  8ia  ^updg  is  as  far  removed  from  iv  r.upi  as 
hy  is  from  in.  The  ichence  case  and  the  where  case  are  in- 
convertible. This  point  receives  additional  evidence,  of  the 
strongest  possible  kind,  by  the  conjunction  of  bmaiihui  with 
these  terms.  To  be  baptized  "  by  the  i^ower  of  water,"  "  by 
the  iwxaer  of  the  Spirit,"  "  by  the  nature  of  fire,"  as  expres- 
sive of  simple  enclosure  in  icater,  in  Spirit,  in  fire,  is  impossible 
and  absurd  phraseology.  But  if  water,  and  Spirit,  and  fire 
are  agencies  accomplishing  baptisms  by  their  peculiar  power, 
naturally  or  specially  conferred,  then,  this  qualifying  term 
is  most  appropriate,  and  the  theory  is  robbed  of  her  receiv- 
ing element;  that  palladium  which  being  lost,  all  is  lost. 

This  usage  is  most  entirely  coincident  with  that  of  the 
Classics.  In  all  baptisms  kindred  to  those  which  are  now 
under  consideration,  they  invariably  use  the  dative,  without 
a  preposition,  instrunientully.    ^yinc  is  not  the  element  in 


BAPTISM   BY   A   COAL   OF   FIRE.  247 

which  the  baptism  is  effected,  but  the  means  by  which.  Drugs 
are  not  the  element  in  which  the  man  is  put  to  sleep  (bap- 
tized), but  by  which.  Questions,  inagical  arts,  hard  study,  taxes, 
debts,  grief ,  famine,  2LYQ  not  elements  in  which  men  are  bap- 
tized, but  means  by  ivhich  they  are  brought  under  their  seve- 
ral peculiar  and  controlling  powers. 

Classic,  Jewish,  and  Patristic  w^ritings  show  that  the  theo- 
rists, unwarned  by  the  blunder  of  Gale,  (in  making  the  nude 
dative  local,  in  order  to  make  ftdzrio  dip,  and  so  get  the  lake 
in  the  blood  of  the  frog,  instead  of  accepting  a  secondary 
meaning  as  indicated  by  the  instrumental  form,  and  dyeijig 
the  lake  by  blood),  have  perpetuated  that  error  in  their  in- 
terpretation of  these  baptisms.  To  correct  the  error  is  to 
take  the  underpinning  from  the  theory. 

EUSEBIUS. 

Baptism  by  the  fire  of  martyrdom. — Herais,  a  female  cate- 
chumen and  yet  uubaptized  by  water,  was  put  to  death  by 
fire,  as  a  disciple  of  Christ.  But  the  historian  says  :  "  She 
received  that  baptism  which  is  by  fire."  Water  baptism, 
ordinarily,  was  essential  to  salvation,  because  it  was  believed 
that  there  was  a  "  power"  in  the  water  to  take  away  sin  from 
the  soul.  It  was,  however,  agreed,  that  this  power  was  not 
limited  to  water,  but  belonged,  also,  to  "confession"  of 
Christ  by  martyrdom.  This  was  called  sometimes,  generi- 
cally,  "  baptism  of  martyrdom,"  "  baptism  of  confession," 
and  sometimes,  specifically,  "baptism  of  blood,"  "baptism 
of  fire." 

The  baptism  had  nothing,  whatever,  to  do  with  the  mode 
or  extent  of  the  application  of  the  blood  or  fire  to  the  body. 
These  things  were  only  the  signs,  or  means  of  death.  In 
death  by  fire  the  body  was,  more  or  less,  enveloped  by  the 
flames,  perhaps  never  absolutely,  but  this  was  no  part  of 
the  baptism;  that  centred  in  dying  for  Christ.  In  this  same 
extract  we  have  a  reference  to  a  martyr  who  was  beheaded. 
How  much  of  his  body  was  "  enveloped"  by  the  sword?  It 
was  as  much  a  baptism  of  the  sword  as  that  at  the  gate  of 
Paradise.     How  much  of  his  body  was  "covered"  by  his 


248  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

blood  ?  If  the  headlesss  trunk  spouted  forth  its  blood  so 
that  not  one  drop  fell  upon  it,  it  was  as  much  a  baptism  by 
blood,  as  if  it  had  been  sunk  in  the  Nile  when,  under  Moses' 
rod,  its  billows  rolled  in  one  crimson  tide  of  blood. 

In  every  aspect  in  which  the  subject  is  presented  we  find 
nowhere  a  baptism  m  a  receiving  element;  we  find  every- 
wdiere,  under  every  form  of  action,  baptisms  effected  by 
agencies  possessed  of  power  to  control  comijletely  the  condition 
of  their  objects. 

A  fiery  stream,  or  a  coal  of  fire,  is  equally  suitable,  as 
agencies,  to  effect  a  baptism. 

Isaiah,  baptized  by  the  seraphim  with  a  burning  coal,  wit- 
nesses with  pure  and  glowing  lips  that  "the  theory"  is  of 
earth  and  not  from  heaven. 


BAPTISM  BY  WATER,  BY  SPIRIT,  AND  BY  FIRE. 

Isaiah  4 :  4. 

"When  the  Lord  shall  have  washed  away  the  filth  of  the 
daughters  of  Zion,  and  shall  have  purged  the  blood  of  Jerusalem 
from  the  midst  thereof,  by  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  by  the 
spirit  of  burning." 

Septuagint. 

"On  kxTzkuvel  xuptoq  rov  pujtov  raJv  ulaiv  xal  toJv  Soyariptov  Itmv^  xai  to 
aifia  ixxaSapisl  ix  /liffou  adrcuv,  iv  TzvsO/iari  xpiatcoq  xaX  irvsupari  xauffsux;. 

Interpretation. 

'ETzei  youv  d/i^orepa  auv7,il>sv  6  J{upto<;,  t6  re  i^  uSaroi;  elq 

fi£Td-M)iav,  xai  t»  ix  Ilvevparot;  dt;  avaylv'^rjatv,  xai  6  ?Jyoi;  alviaffszai  apfo- 
tepa  ra  ^a-Tzriapaza.  Mt^ttots  rpt'tq  eiffiv  al  enivoiai  rou  ,3a-Ti(TpaT0':,  o 
T£  TOO  /5u7:ou  xaOapiffpd^,  xa\  ij  old  too  Iheupazoq  dvayi^wrjff'.i;,  xa\  ij  iv  tuJ 
TUp)  T/j":  xpi<TSU)q  (Jdffavoq. 

"This  passage  foretells,  clearly,  the  same  things  which  were 
spoken  by  John  concerning  the  Lord:  'This  is  ho  Avho  shall 
baptize  you  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire;'  but  concerning  him- 
self, ho  says:  'I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  into  repentance.' 
Since  then  the  Lord  conjoined  both,  that  from  water  into  re- 


BAPTISM   BY  WATER,   BY   SPIRIT,   AND   BY   FIRE.  249 

pentance,  and  that  from  the  Spirit  into  regeneration,  the  Scrip- 
ture, also,  foreshadows  both  these  baptisms.  Perhaps  there  ai*e 
three  meanings  of  baptism:  purification  from  defilement,  regen- 
eration by  the  Spirit,  and  trial  by  the  fire  of  judgment.  So  that 
'  the  washing'  (v.  4)  is  to  be  understood  in  reference  to  the  re- 
moval of  sin  now;  but  'by  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  by  the 
spirit  of  burning,'  (v.  4,)  the  reference  is  to  the  trial  by  fire  iu 
the  future  world." — Basil  the  Great,  ii,  341. 


BASIL. 

By  the  spirit  of  burning. — The  Septuagint,  in  translating 
this  passage,  uses  the  preposition  [Iv)  but  once,  while  Basil, 
following  the  Hebrew  more  closely,  repeats  it, — Iv  meu/xaTt 

xpiffecuq  xai  Iv  Ttvzujiazi  xauffsaiq. 

It  is  admitted  that  ^v  has  an  instrumental  as  well  as  a  local 
force;  but  the  theory  is  interested  to  make  the  former  mean- 
ing as  near  zero  as  possible,  and  especially  to  insist,  that  in 
all  cases  of  baptism  it  must  have  a  local  meaning.  It  is  de- 
sirable, then,  to  look  at  the  matter  in  the  light  of  the  usage 
of  this  highly  accomplished  Greek  writer. 

1.  The  subject-matter  embraced  in  these  datives,  is  not 
favorable  to  the  sense  claimed.  "Washing  out  [ixnXuvei)  and 
purging  out  {ly.y.a6apt£~i)  in  {Iv)  a  spirit  of  judgment  and  in  [iv) 
a  spirit  of  burning."  It  is  not  likely  that  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  Zion  would  be  represented  as  put  within  such 
things,  to  wash  them  and  to  purge  them.  But  such  sugges- 
tions of  congruity  are  "lighter  than  vanity"  when  they  con- 
flict with — "nothing  but  dip."  We  have  seen  this  abun- 
dantly exemplified  in  Classic  Baptism  where,  in  the  absence 
of  the  preposition,  they  have  made  the  naked  dative  the  oc- 
casion for  puttiug  men  in  a  bottle  of  wine,  in  an  opiate  drug, 
and  in  a  perplexing  question.  We  must,  then,  find  some 
other  reason  more  imperative  than  the  fitness  of  things. 

2.  We  show  then,  by  other  phraseology  in  the  context, 
that  Basil  had  no  other  idea  than  the  use  of  this  preposition 
with  an  instrumental  force. 

This  is  manifest  (1.)  From  his  omission  of  the  preposition; 

as,  TO  dz  T:vzu/iaTt  xpiaewq  xai  Tz^eviiaTi  xauaewc;,  in   the   Same   para- 


250  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

graph.  But  as  we  have  ah-eady  seen  the  natural  force  be- 
longing to  this  form  of  expression  to  be  utterly  set  at  naught, 
when  there  was  nothing  to  encourage  so  doing;  now,  having 
aid  and  comfort  from  the  previous  use  of  iv^  we  can  expect 
no  voluntary  concession.  It  must  be  wrung  out.  Basil  fur- 
nishes us  with  material  to  do  this. 

3.  The  dative,  with  the  preposition,  is  changed  into  the 
genitive,  with  its  prepositions.     Thus  iv  odan  becomes  I?  o8a- 

Toq;  iv  mzO'iaz'.  bccomes^^  Ihebnaroq;  iv  zw  r.upi  becOmeS  8ta  too 
TTU/w^j  and  iy-  too  riopo^;  h  r^vebiian  /.auaziuq  becomes  ^'-O-  "i^?  too 
mzbimzuq  xabatw^-^  and  all  this  in  a  single  paragraph. 

No  wonder  the  theory  makes  a  hard  light  here.  The  con- 
version of  these  datives  into  agencies,  like  the  burning  light- 
ning, withers  its  life  to  the  very  roots.  Basil  does  his  work 
well. 

Three  meanings. — This  able  commentator  says  that  bap- 
tism (as  presented  in  this  passage,  not  absolutely,)  has  three 
meanings  or  phases  of  development.  It  has  been  said  (and 
I  think  the  evidence  to  substantiate  it  given)  in  Classic  Bap- 
tism, that  "  baptism  is  myriad-sided;"  and,  here,  in  a  single 
passage,  we  are  told,  by  a  most  accomplished  Greek  writer, 
that  there  is  a  threefold  development  of  the  word.  And  it 
is  of  this  word  the  theory  says:  "It  means  dip,  and  nothing 
but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature." 

It  will  be  observed,  in  this  threefold  baptism,  that  condi- 
tion is  an  ever-present  element,  and  dipping,  never. 

1.  Purification:  a  condition  of  purity  induced,  b}'  the  ap- 
propriate means,  from  either  Judaic  ceremonial  impurity, 
or  from  the  defilement  of  "lighter"  sins. 

2.  llegencration :  a  condition  of  new  spiritual  life;  the  re- 
sult of  a  radical  change  in  that  condition  pertaining  to  birth 
by  nature. 

3.  Trial  by  fire  of  judgment :  a  final  test  of  our  condition  of 
preparation  to  enter  into  the  Paradise  of  God. 

"Attic  salt"  has  been  freely  sprinkled  upon  those  who 
talked  of  a  "  religious  "  meaning  belonging  to  /3a?rru«>.  And 
yet  the  Archbishop  of  Caesarea,  the  first  among  Greek  Pa- 
triarchs, furnishes  us  with  something  that  looks  very  much 


BAPTISMS — MENTAL   AND    MORAL.  251 

like  a  religious  meaning  of  this  word.  Certainly  there  is 
but  little  which  resembles,  in  nature,  that  Classic  use  which 
has  heretofore  engaged  our  attention.  Religions  purification 
is  the  ground-thought,  as  presented  in  these  three  baptisms; 
this  elementary  idea  receiving  coloring  from  the  specialties 
of  each  case.  Religious  usage  has  given  a  religious  mean- 
ing, or  fact  is  fiction. 

But  while  there  is  a  religious  element  and  a  religious 
meaning  here  present,  it  is  reached  without  the  slightest  de- 
parture from  the  principles  of  language,  and  without  laying 
aside  the  original  fundamental  thought  of  condition,  cliarac- 
terized  by  completeness.  The  difference  exists  only  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  agencies,  and  the  ends  to  which  they  are  ad- 
dressed. Take  wine,  as  a  baptizing  agency,  and  you  have 
a  Classic  baptism  of  one  kind.  Take  a  drugged  drink,  as  a 
baptizing  agency,  and  you  have  a  Classic  baptism  of  another 
kind.  "Baptism  is  not  one,"  is  a  doctrine  as  much  believed 
by  the  Classics  as  by  the  Patrists.  Among  the  "  multa 
genera  baptismatum,"  the  genus  treated  of  by  Basil  and  his 
friends,  differed  from  that  treated  of  by  Plutarch  and  his  as- 
sociates. 

These  y?re  baptisms  throw  their  light  fJxr  and  wide;  but 
their  light  is  darkness  to  the  theory. 


BAPTISMS— MENTAL  AND  MORAL. 

BAPTISM    BY   HEAVY    IRON   AND    BY   HEAVIEST   SINS. 
II  Kings  6  :  5,  6. 

"But  as  one  was  felUng  a  beam,  the  axe-bcad  fell  into  the 
water;  and  he  cried,  and  said,  Alas,  master!  for  it  was  bor- 
rowed. 

"And  the  man  of  God  said,  Where  fell  it?  And  he  showed 
him  the  place.  And  he  cut  down  a  stick  and  cast  it  in  thither; 
and  the  iron  did  swim." 


252  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

Interpretation. 

EuXov  ^EXiaaaioq  ftaXuJv  icq  ruv  ^lopdrbrjv  Tzozaiibv  dvijveyxs  rdv  ffidijpov 
Ttjq  d^ivTjt;,  iv  fj  TzeTTopeufxivui  r^aav  6i  uUn  tojv  7:po(prjTa)v  x6</'ai  .  .  .  ut'Z  xal 
^/wL^  ljejja-Ti<T;xivou<;  Talc;  (iapurdraiq  dfxaprcaiq  aq  iTvpd^afxsv  dtd  too  arau- 
pujffrjvai  i.-\  ruo  ^uXou  xai  di  uduToq  dyviacxt  6  ApioToq  rjfj.u>v  iXurpaxraTO. 

**  Elisha  casting  a  stick  into  the  river  Jordan,  brought  up  the 
iron  of  the  axe  with  which  the  sons  of  the  prophets  had  gone 
forth  to  cut  wood  ...  as  also  Christ  hath  redeemed  us,  mersed 
by  heaviest  sins  which  we  have  committed,  through  the  cruci- 
fixion upon  the  wood,  and  purification  through  water." — Justin 
Martyr,  681. 

"  Exiliit  ferrum,  et  mersum  est  in  flumiue,  .  .  .  accepto  ligno, 
et  misso  in  eum  locum,  ubi  submersum  fuerat  ferrum,  statira 

Bupernatavit Quid  manifestius  hujus  ligni  Sacramento? 

quod  duritia  hujus  sa^culi  mersa  in  profundo  erroris,  et  a  ligno 
Christi,  id  est  passionis  ejus,  in  baptismo,  liberatur,  ut  cpiod 
perierat  olim  per  lignum  in  Adam,  id  restitueretur  per  lignum 
Christi." 

"Moreover  we  read  in  the  book  of  Kings  that  the  sacrament 
of  this  word  is  celebrated.  For  when  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
were  cutting  wood  with  axes  over  the  river  Jordan,  the  iron  fell 
oflF  and  was  mersed  in  the  river;  and  so  the  prophet  Elisha,  com- 
ing up,  the  sons  of  the  prophets  ask  from  him  that  he  would  draw 
out  the  iron  which  had  been  mersed  in  the  river.  Elisha  hav- 
ing taken  a  piece  of  wood,  and  cast  it  into  the  place  where  the 
iron  had  been  submersed,  immediately  it  floated.  .  .  .  By  which 
they  understood  that  the  spirit  of  Elijah  Avas  present  again  in 
him.  What  is  more  clear  than  the  sacrament  of  this  wood? 
that  the  hardness  of  this  age,  mersed  in  the  depth  of  error,  is 
delivered  by  the  wood  of  Christ." — Tertullian,  ii,  63G. 

"Oirep  ^v  ffrj/xs'tov  dvayojyrjq  </>u/(vv  dcd  ^oXou,  i<p^  uu  TiiTTo'/Ssv  6  (^'oydq 
dvdyziv  duvdjiSMoq,  dxoXuodouffaq  d>68u)  tyj  iauToo. 

"  Which  was  a  sign  of  the  bringing  up  of  souls,  through  the 
cross,  upon  which  he  suffered,  who  is  able  to  bring  up  souls  fol- 
lowing in  the  way  of  his  ascending." — Irenoius,  1243. 

OuToq  {6  a-caopo-z)  a-o  rob  ^u6od  xT^q  xaxiaq  ijixaq  d^daxaffaq . 

"This  (the  cross)  drawing  us  up  from  the  depth  of  deprav- 
ity."—  Chrysostom,  ii,  407. 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   AXE.  253 

"  Invocavit  Eliseus  Domini  nomen,  et  de  aqua  ferrum  securis 
ascendit  quod  dcmersum  fuerat.  Ecce  aliud  genus  baptismatis. 
Quare?  Quia  omnis  homo  ante  baptismum  quasi  ferrum  pre- 
mitur,  atque  demergitur,  ubi  baptizatus  fuerit,  non  tanquam  fer- 
rum, sed  tanquam  jam  levior  fructuosi  ligni  species  elevatur. 
.  .  .  Vides,  ergo,  quod  in  cruce  Christi  omnium  hominum  leva- 
tur  infirmitas." 

"Elisha  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  the  iron  of  the 
axe  which  had  been  dem.ersed  ascends  from  the  water.  Behold, 
another  kind  of  baptism  !  Why  ?  Because  every  man  before 
baptism,  like  iron,  is  pressed  down  and  demersed;  when  bap- 
tized, not  like  iron,  but  like  some  lighter  kind  of  fruitful  wood, 
he  is  raised  up.  .  .  .  Thou  seest,  therefore,  that  by  the  cross  of 
Christ  the  infirmity  of  all  men  is  lightened." — Ambrose,  iii,  427. 

BAPTISM   OF   THE   AXE. 

The  mersion  of  the  axe  in  Jordan  has  special  interest, 
because  it  brings  us  back  into  a  purely  classic  atmosphere. 
Heathen  writers  give  us  abundant  cases  in  which  heavy 
bodies,  going  down  to  the  bottom  of  rivers,  lakes,  marshes, 
and  seas,  and  remaining  there  unrecovered,  are  in  a  state 
of  baptism.  A  ship,  a  fishing-spear,  a  breastplate,  a  man  in 
armor,  sunk  in  river  or  sea,  is  baptized,  lost,  in  a  ruined 
condition. 

The  natural,  unavoidable  application  in  secondary  use, 
of  the  word  expressive  of  such  condition,  would  be  to  such 
things  as  exhibit  a  condition  of  suffering  or  ruin.  Thus,  a 
man  who  had  lost  the  control  of  his  intellect  by  hard  study, 
or  bewilderment,  or  idiocy;  who  had  lost  the  control  of  his 
property  by  debt  or  misfortune;  who  had  lost  his  happiness 
through  some  great  sorrow;  who  had  lost  his  health  by  dis- 
ease; who  had  lost  his  consciousness  through  intoxication; 
was  freely  called  a  baptized  man.  The  classic,  secondary 
use  of  the  word  did  not  pass,  at  all  or  but  little,  beyond  this 
range  of  application  to  conditions  of  injury,  loss,  and  ruin. 
Josephus  frequently  employs  the  word  after  the  usage  of  the 
classics,  and  also  carries  it  into  another  sphere,  namely,  tliat 
of  religion,  as  expressive  of  a  condition  of  ceremonial  puri- 


254  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

fication.  In  doing  tliis,  lie  neither  departs  from  tlie  funda- 
mental character  of  the  word,  nor  from  the  principle  of 
classic  usage  in  its  extension  to  cases  of  controlling  influ- 
ence, where  there  is  no  physical  envelopment. 

AVhile  a  very  large  number  of  cases  of  mersion  result  in 
injury  or  destruction,  this  is  not  the  case  with  every  mersion. 
The  nature  of  the  condition  resultant  from  a  physical  mer- 
sion will  depend :  1.  On  the  nature  of  the  element  within 
which  the  mersion  takes  place  ;  and,  2.  On  the  nature  of  the 
object  mersed.  Time  of  continuance  cannot  be  introduced 
as  an  additional  element  determining  the  condition  to  which 
mersion  may  be  applied,  because  mersion  has  no  limitation 
of  time,  and  to  introduce  such  an  element  would  be  to  intro- 
duce what  is  foreign  to  its  nature.  A  mersed  condition  may 
be  changed  by  foreign  influences,  but  it  has  no  element  of 
change  within  itself.  Baptism,  therefore,  can  only  be  ap- 
plied to  such  conditions  as  are  either  absolutely  permanent, 
or  which  left  to  themselves  would  be  so. 

Historically  we  have,  as  elements  of  mersion,  water,  (in 
various  forms,  fresh,  salt,  pure,  impure,  hot,  cold,  as  also 
impregnated  with  various  qualities,)  oil,  milk,  wine,  blood, 
vinegar,  mud,  marsh,  the  human  body,  &c.  As  mersed  ob- 
jects we  have,  rocks,  metals,  salt,  sponge,  a  crown,  a  pickle, 
human  beings,  a  dolphin,  an  ape,  clean  things,  unclean 
things,  &c.  &G. 

Now  it  is  obvious,  that  the  mersion  of  the  same  object  into 
dift'erent  elements  would  be  productive  of  conditions  widely 
dift'erent.  Take,  for  instance,  a  piece  of  limestone  and  im- 
merse it,  first  in  water  and  then  in  vinegar,  and  how  different 
the  resultant  conditions.  Take  any  object  and  immerse  it 
in  water  or  in  oil,  in  milk  or  in  blood,  and  how  different 
the  result.  Take  a  vegetable  and  immerse  it  in  syrup  or  in 
vinegar,  and  you  have  a  preserve  or  a  pickle.  ^Mersion  in 
clean  water  or  dirty  water  has  not  the  same  issue.  If  you 
take  different  objects  and  use  the  same  element,  you  still 
have  a  diversity  of  conditions.  The  mersion  of  a  dolphiu 
and  an  ape  in  water,  is  a  condition  of  life  in  the  one  case  and 
of  death  in  the  other.     The  mule  of  the  table  found  out. 


BAPTISM   OF  THE   AXE.  255 

that  the  condition  resultant  from  the  morsion  of  a  bag  of 
salt  or  of  a  bag  of  sponge,  in  the  same  element,  was  widely 
diverse.  Merse  clean  linen  into  pure  water  and  muddy 
water;  is  the  result  the  same? 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  Classic  Baptism, 
with  its  wide  range  of  elements  and  of  objects,  could  never 
be  restricted,  by  any  necessity  of  its  own,  to  the  designation 
of  condition  limited  by  injury  or  ruin.  It  is  perfectly  adapted 
to  this  end;  but  no  less  so  to  express  condition,  endlessly 
varied,  under  the  ruling  thought  of  controlling  influence. 

W-lien  this  Greek  word  was  introduced  within  the  sphere 
of  revealed  religion  it  met,  everywhere,  the  demand  for  a  con- 
dition of  complete  ceremonial  purification.  It  met  with  in- 
fluences proceeding,  by  divine  enactment,  from  water,  blood, 
heifer  ashes,  &c.,  competent  to  eflfect  such  condition.  To  se- 
cure such  condition,  modes  of  use — washing,  pouring,  sprink- 
ling, (but  never  the  dipping  of  men  and  women  into  water,) 
— were  found  divinely  enacted.  Under  these  circumstances 
Jewish  writers  took  this  word  and  applied  it,  without  vary- 
ing one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  principle  of  Classic  usage,  to  a 
condition  resultant  from  controlling  influence;  the  specific 
condition  being — complete  ceremonial  'purification.  Patristic 
writers,  while  thoroughly  accepting  both  Classic  and  Jewish 
usage,  carry  on  the  idea  through  ceremonial  rites  and  types 
to  the  consummation  of  a  complete  spiritual  purification, 
through  agencies  which  they  believed  were  fully  competent 
to  control  the  result  without  dipping  or  covering,  any  more 
than  Classic  usage,  in  parallel  cases,  required  dipping  or 
covering. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  manner  in  which  this  axe-bap- 
tism, so  separated  from  Judaism  and  so  exclusively  Classical 
in  its  character,  is  treated  by  the  Theorists  and  the  Patrists 
respectively ;  as,  also,  to  its  bearing  on  their  principles. 

Dr.  Carson  lays  hands  on  this  transaction  with  a  smile  of 
joy  and  claims  it  all  his  own.  But  why.  Doctor?  Is  this 
baptism  to  be  marshalled  under — "Modal  act,  dip  and  noth- 
ing but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature?"  Was  the  axe 
"  dipped"  into  the  Jordan?   "  Although  there  is  no  exempli- 


256  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

fication  of  the  act  of  dipping  in  the  axe  falling,  yet  the  word 
expresses  the  act,  and  was  designed  to  express  it,  as  much 
as  in  any  case  of  dipping,  as  I  have  proved,  (to  my  entire 
satisfaction,)  in  the  sea-coast  baptism,  where  'overflow 'is 
put,  by  catachresis,  for  dipping,  just  as  'fall'  is  here  put 
for  dipping.  The  axe,  when  it  fell  into  the  water,  was 
covered,  antl  when  it  was  brought  up  by  the  prophet  it  was 
uncovered,  just  as  the  sea-coast  is  covered  and  bare  at  high 
and  low  tide.  In  both  cases  one  form  of  act  is,  by  figure, 
put  for  another  form  of  act;  and  any  one  who  has  a  soul  for 
poetry  can  see  the  beauty  of  the  figure."  But  your  friends, 
Fuller,  and  Ripley,  and  Conant,  having  read  your  explana- 
tion of  catachristic  baptism,  say,  they  cannot  see  the  poetry, 
and  that  "overflow"  must  remain  overjloiv,  and  "fall"  must 
remain /«7^, just  as  in  plain  prose.  "Then,  what  are  they 
contending  for;  they  give  up  the  question;  baptizing  is  dip- 
ping, and  dipping  is  baptizing?"  Well,  I  have  been  trying 
to  find  out  where  they  are  since  they  have  slipped  anchor 
from  the  dipping  ground;  but  I  cannot  say.  But,  Doctor, 
it  seems  that  the  axe  was  a  good  while  under  water;  and  if 
it  had  been  a  son  of  the  prophet  who  got  this  baptism  in  the 
Jordan  instead  of  the  axe,  and  he  had  lain  on  the  bottom 
until  they  went  after  the  prophet,  and  told  the  story,  and 
brought  him  to  the  spot,  and  he  had  cut  a  stick,  and  thrown 
it  in,  it  would  not  have  done  him  much  good  to  have  brought 
him  up  again.  Like  Aristobulus  he  would  have  "  remained 
under  too  long." 

This  axe-baptism,  so  thoroughly  Classic,  confronts  the 
theory  with  two  projecting  and  very  sharp  horns;  on  the 
one  is  written  —  "No  dippin-o  in  me;  "  on  the  other — "No 
taking  out  of  Jordan  by  me." 

This  axe  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  cuts  up  the  theory 
even  on  the  very  banks  of  Jordan.  Perhaps  it  could  not  be 
put  to  better  service.  Its  trenchant  blows  are  irresistible. 
"Modal  act,"  "catachresis,"  ^Hcmporarg  covering,"  can  no 
more  resist  its  blows,  than  the  turbancd  head  of  the  Saracen, 
the  blows  of  the  battle-axe  of  llichard.  The  theory  is  brained, 
and  dies  (with  poetical  justice)  by  the  loved  banks  of  the  river. 


BAPTISM   BY   HEAVIEST   SINS.  257 

We  will  now  look  at  the  theory  in  the  light  of  that  "  other 
kind  of  baptism  "  which  the  Patrists  deduce  from  this  literal 
and  Classic  baptism. 

JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

Justin,  originally  a  Greek  philosopher,  familiar  with  all  its 
schools  of  learning,  and  then,  a  Christian,  Patrist,  and  Martyr, 
says,  "  So,  also,  Ave  are  baptized  by  heaviest  sins."  This,  cer- 
tainly, is  "another  baptism"  from  enveloping  w^ater,  and  yet 
it  is  a  true  baptism  if  we  may  rely  upon  the  testimony  of  one 
who  was  a  Greek  of  the  Greeks.  What  is  the  resemblance 
between  the  two  baptisms,  and  what  is  the  justification  in 
carrying  over  the  name  from  the  one  to  the  other? 

1.  The  baptisms  resemble  each  other  in  that  neither  re- 
quires a  modal  act  for  its  accomplishment.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  axe  was  baptized  hy  falling,  and  "  falling  "  is  a  modal 
act;  but  I  have  never  understood  that  the  theory  took  the 
ground  that  "falling  was  baptizing  and  baptizing  was  fall- 
ing." As  a  matter  of  fact  our  first  parents  were  "baptized 
by  heaviest  sin"  through  the  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit. 
And  "  eating  "  is  a  modal  act ;  yet,  I  presume  we  will  not 
be  required  to  identify  the  modal  act  of  eating  with  the  modal 
act  of  falling,  or  be  shut  up  to  the  proof  that  "  eating  is  bap- 
tizing and  baptizing  is  eating." 

I  think  we  may  safely  assume  that  Justin's  baptism  does 
not  forfeit  its  title,  because  the  act,  by  Avhich  the  soul  is  bap- 
tized through  sin,  is  not  of  the  same  modal  form  as  that  by 
which  the  axe  passes  to  its  baptism  on  the  bottom  of  the 
Jordan. 

2.  These  baptisms  resemble  each  other  in  that  both  are 
characterized  by  completeness  of  condition.  The  one  of 
fact,  a  complete  water  envelopment;  the  other  not  of  fact, 
nor  of  imagination,  but  of  verbal  suggestion.  The  theory 
does  not  require  that  physical  envelopment  should  be  shown 
in  sin-baptism,  as  a  fact,  but  demands  the  ineftable  absurdity 
that  the  sinner  should,  by  a  lively  imagination,  be  dipped 
into  water!  There  is  no  such  rhetorical  bathos  in  Justin's 
"other  baptism."     Verbal  suggestion  of  envelopment,  more 

17 


258  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

or  less  according  to  circumstances,  is  all  that  belongs  to  the 
word  at  any  time  in  this  secondary  use ;  and  oftentimes,  as 
to  the  design  of  the  writer  or  the  fitness  of  the  case,  this 
suggestion  has  no  existence.  And  for  this  there  is  the  most 
substantial  reason.  These  secondary  baptisms  are  not  de- 
duced from  those  primary  baptisms  in  which  there  is  mere 
envelopment;  but  from  a  very  different  class,  namely,  those 
in  which  the  envelopment  is  overshadowed  by  its  result,  and 
is  of  no  value  except  as  causative  of  that  result.  To  illus- 
trate :  Suppose  one  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  had  .picked 
up  a  pebble  and  thrown  it  into  the  river;  there  would  have 
been  a  baptism,  a  complete  envelopment,  and  that  would 
have  been  all.  The  baptism  would  not  have  been  causative 
of  injury  to  the  pebble,  or  of  loss  and  grief  to  the  son  of  the 
prophet.  Now  if  such  baptism  (of  mere  envelopment),  had 
been  exhaustive  of  literal  baptisms,  we  would  never  have 
heard  of  grief  baptisms,  and  debt  baptisms,  and  sleep  bap- 
tisms, and  drunken  baptisms,  among  the  Classics;  nor  of 
purification  baptisms,  and  sin  baptisms,  among  Jews  and 
Patrists. 

A  man  who  would  make  a  pebble  baptism  the  basis  of  a 
"baptism  for  the  soul  in  sin"  would  be  a  laughing-stock  for 
the  common  sense  of  the  world.  What  would  be  the  re- 
semblance ?  "  The  envelopment."  But  there  is  no  envelop- 
ment in  sin.  "True,  but  we  imagine  it."  And  why,  for 
its  own  sake?     "No,  not  for  the  mere  envelopment,  but 

for "     Well,  for  what  ?     "  Why,  I  suppose  to  show  how 

fully  at  every  point,  the  soul  is  subject  to  the  influence  of 
sin."  Very  well ;  will  you  now  be  so  kind  as  to  point  out  the 
fulness  of  influence  exerted  at  every  point,  by  water,  over  a 
flint  pebble  ?     "  If  not  made  soaking  Avet,  it  is  damp  outside.'' 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say,  that  there  is  no  more  basis  in  bap- 
tisms of  naked  envelopment  on  which  to  ground  secondary 
baptisms  of  influence,  than  there  was  to  be  found  a  wD  aTcb 
for  Archimedes  to  lift  the  world.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that 
the  baptism  of  Justin  is  founded  on  another  class  of  baptisms, 
namely,  the  baptism  of  a  world,  of  a  ship,  of  a  human  being, 
issuing  in  loss,  ruin^  and  ckath.     In  such  baptisms  envelop- 


BAPTISM   BY   HEAVIEST   SINS.  259 

ment  is  subsidiary  to  influence ;  and,  therefore,  in  secondary 
baptisms  based  upon  them,  the  formal  cause  may  disap- 
pear, while  correspondent  influence  appears  in  boldest  relief. 
This  truth  Dr.  Carson  is  compelled  to  admit.  In  answer  to 
the  objection,  that  there  is  no  resemblance  of  envelopment 
between  these  secondary  and  primary  baptisms,  he  replies 
(p.  493) :  "  Is  not  the  resemblance  in  the  effects  ?"  How  this 
consists  with  the  theory  it  is  no  business  of  ours  to  show ; 
but  it  relieves  us,  b}^  the  confession  of  an  opponent,  of  the 
necessity  for  showing  any  resemblance,  or  any  existence  of 
envelopment  in  the  case  of  secondary  baptisms,  if  we  can 
show  existence  and  resemblance  of  "  effects." 

3.  I  proceed,  then,  to  show  :  That  these  baptisms  resemble 
each  other  in  their  resultant  "effects."  The  baptism  of  the 
axe  brought  it  into  a  lost  condition.  There  was  nothing  in 
baptism  to  change  that  condition ;  the  son  of  the  prophet 
could  not  recover  it,  and  he  was  affected  with  grief,  exclaim- 
ing, "Alas !  master  it  was  borrowed."  The  borrower  cared 
nothing  for  the  covering  water  save  as  it  brought  his  axe 
into  a  lost  condition.  It  was  not  the  envelopment  that  he 
cared  for,  but  the  effect  of  that  envelopment.  Had  the  axe 
fallen  into  shallow  water  where  he  could  see  it  and  pick  it 
up,  effect,  lost  condition,  would  not  have  existed ;  and  Justin 
would  have  lost  the  opportunity  to  ground  his  sin  baptism 
upon  it.  It  is  the  lost  condition  of  an  object  lying  at  the  bot- 
tom of  a  river,  which  suggests  to  this  Greek,  (who  still  w^ears 
the  mantle  of  a  philosopher,)  the  lost  condition  baptism  of  the 
souls  of  men,  through  sin.  Now,  what  need,  or  fitness,  or 
practicability  is  there  of  introducing  envelopment  in  this 
baptism?  The  axe  was  lost,  completely  lost;  the  soul  is 
lost,  completely  lost;  the  axe  is  baptized,  completely  under 
the  influence  of  the  waters  as  separating  it  from  the  loser ; 
the  soul  is  baptized,  completely  under  the  influence  of  sin, 
which  separates  it  from  God.  Herein  is  Justin's  justifica- 
tion in  deducing  sin  baptism  from  this  axe  baptism. 

4.  There  is  another  point  of  resemblance  in  these  bap- 
tisms, which  is  essential.  They  are  both  without  limitation 
in  their  continuance.    The  axe  would  have  continued  at  the 


260  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

bottom  of  Jordan,  until  this  hour,  had  it  been  left  to  its 
baptism.  The  Greek  word  never  takes  its  object  out  of  that 
condition  into  which  it  has  once  placed  it.  Souls  have  con- 
tinued baptized  by  sin  through  thousands  of  years,  and,  alas! 
some  will  continue  "  baptized  by  heaviest  sins"  through  all 
eternity. 

5.  These  baptisms  resemble  each  other,  in  that  both  may 
be  changed  by  ah  extra  influence.  The  axe  may  be  brought 
out  of  its  baptism  by  the  prophet;  the  soul  may  be  brought 
out  of  its  baptism  by  the  cross  of  Christ.  But  without 
foreign  influence  baptisms  are  fixed. 

Kone  can  doubt  but  that  Justin's  baptism  is  fitly  termed 
a  baptism,  not  because  of  any  form  of  act  done,  nor  because 
of  an  envelopment  the  result  of  some  act  of  any  kind ;  but 
because  of  a  condition  without  any  self-changing  element, 
and  characterized  by  controlling  influence. 

Compare,  now,  with  this  Jordan  baptism,  the  baptism  of 
the  theory. 

1.  The  theory  calls  for  a  definite  act.  "  The  word,  with- 
out one  exception,  signifies  simply  to  dip."  (Carson,  p.  103.) 
Well,  was  *'  the  axe  "  dipped  ?  "  In  any  particular  instance, 
where  this  word  is  applied  to  an  object  lying  under  water, 
but  not  actually  dipped,  the  mpde  essentially  denoted  by  it, 
is  as  truly  expressed  as  in  any  other  instance  of  its  occur- 
rence. Indeed,  the  whole  beauty  of  such  expressions  con- 
sists in  the  expression  of  a  mode  not  really  belonging  to  the 
thing  expressed.  The  imagination,"  &c.,  (p.  21.)  We  will 
not  follow  Dr.  Carson's  "imagination."  Can  demonstration 
be  more  absolute  in  proof  that  Dr.  C.  had  no  just  conception 
of  the  meaning  of  /3a-r£'>  ?  Was  the  axe,  baptized  in  the 
Jordan,  "dipped?"  Will  any  sane  "imagination"  under- 
take the  task  of  converting  the  fall  of  a  piece  of  iron  to  the 
bottom  of  a  river,  into  a  dippinrj  ?  Yet  the  theory  imposes 
this  hard  task  upon  its  disciples. 

2.  The  theory  makes  no  provision  for  state  or  condition  of 
the  baptized  object.  If  the  son  of  the  prophet  had  "  dipped" 
his  axe  into  the  Jordan,  would  he  have  changed  its  state  or 
condition?     The  dipping  of  no  object  can,  by  any  possibility, 


BAPTISM   BY   HEAVIEST   SINS.  261 

give  it  a  status  within  the  element  into  which  it  is  dipped; 
because  it  cannot  be  dipped  without  being  brought  out, 
■without  tarrying,  from  the  element  into  which  it  has  been 
introduced.  But  the  very  essence  of  a  baptism  is  the  bring- 
ing of  an  object  into  a  new  state  or  condition;  and,  without 
this,  there  can  be  no  baptism.  The  dippincj  of  an  axe,  there- 
fore, is  no  baptism. 

3.  The  theory  makes  no  provision  for  complete  influence. 
The  act  of  dipping  is,  proverbially,  a  trivial  act.  The  dip- 
ping of  an  object  can  produce  but  a  trivial  impression  upon 
it.  So  thoroughly  ingrained  is  this  characteristic  in  all  that 
pertains  to  the  physical  sphere  of  this  word,  that  it  forms  the 
basis  for  its  secondary  use,  to  express  trivial  operations  and 
influences  of  the  mind.  ISTo  word  is  more  thoroughly  re- 
moved from  the  sphere  of  [ianTiZ<u^  whether  in  primary  or 
secondary  baptisms,  than  this  dapper  word  "  dip."  And  yet 
Dr.  Carson  makes  this  word  his  battle-flag,  while  strangely 
shouting,  amid  the  din  of  arras,  "complete  subjection  to  in- 
fluence." Hear  him:  "  Is  not  the  likeness  between  complete 
subjection  to  the  influence  of  sleep,  and  the  complete  subjec- 
tion of  an  object  to  the  influence  of  a  liquid  wdien  immersed  (?) 
in  it?"  (p.  80.)  One  knows  not  whether  to  laugh  or  frown 
at  the  lawless  introduction  here  of  "immerse,"  heaven-wide 
difi:erent  in  meaning  from  dip,  for  which  he  avowedly  con- 
tends. Its  substitution,  how^ever,  proves  our  position,  that 
"dip  "  can  never  bring  an  object  in  "complete  subjection  to 
the  influence  of  a  liquid."  It  is  therefore  utterlj^  incapaci- 
tated to  expound  secondary  baptisms,  which  all  exhibit  some 
powerful  controlling  influence,  or  to  be  the  basis  of  primary 
baptisms,  on  which  secondary  are  grounded. 

Justin  would  have  talked  more  like  a  scholastikos  than  like 
a  philosopher,  had  he  deduced  a  sin-dipping  from  the  axe  lost 
in  the  river  depths. 

Brought  face  to  face  with  this  Classic-Patristic  Baptism, 
"  the  theory  "  breaks  down  at  all  points. 

Justin  and  Carson  are  at  opposites  in  their  notions  of  bap- 
tisms. But,  alas!  so  much  the  worse  for  Justin.  I  suppose 
he  will  have  to  become  a  fellow-pupil  with  the  Angel  Gabriel. 


262  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

TRANSLATION. 

''Heaviest  Saw." 

Justin  Martyr,  in  speaking  of  men  as  baptized  by  a  bap- 
tism analogous  to  that  of  the  lost  axe,  uses  this  language — 

uti;  xai  7jfid<:  l3£j3ai:Tca/xivoo<;  ralq  (Hapurdraiq  d/JLaprtaiq.  Tllis  phrase- 
ology is  not  only  of  great  value,  as  showing  the  true  nature 
of  baptism,  by  placing  primary  baptism  and  secondary  bap- 
tism (the  secondary  being  the  direct  ofispring  of  the  primary) 
side  by  side,  but  the  phraseology  itself  has  special  claim  to 
our  attention.  In  the  person  of  this  writer,  the  heathen 
Classic  and  the  christian  Patrist  meet  together.  The  forms 
of  expression  which  he  employs,  must  therefore  be  of  truly 
Grecian  parentage,  and  any  new  mental  conception,  derived 
from  the  Christian  atmosphere,  into  which  he  has  been  in- 
troduced, must  have  its  fittest  Grecian  dress  in  the  words 
with  which  he  invests  it. 

In  comparing  the  language  of  Justin,  on  this  occasion, 
with  that  of  other  Classic  Greek  writers,  we  notice,  1.  That 
both  employ  the  nude  dative  with  (ianri'^iu.  2.  That  both  em- 
ploy this  nude  form  to  express  the  agency  by  which  the  bap- 
tism is  effected,  and  not  the  element  into  which  the  object 
is  introduced.  3.  That  neither,  in  these  secondary  baptisms, 
made  any  verbal  statement  of  an  enveloping  element.  4. 
That  neither,  certainly,  felt  the  need  of  any  such  suggestion, 
and  probabl}^,  never  formed  any  such  mental  conception. 
How,  now,  is  this  language  of  Justin  treated  by  the  theory? 
It  is  translated  by  Carson,  "immersed  in  the  greatest  sins;" 
"baptized  in  the  most  grievous  sins."  The  Greek  word 
neither  means  "greatest"  nor  "most  grievous,"  but  heaviest. 
Justin  employs  this  term  because  it  is  adapted  to  express, 
clearly  and  forcibly,  what  he  wished  to  express,  namely,  an 
agency  of  baptism;  and,  also,  because  his  cultivated  mind 
enabled  him  to  see  the  fitness  of  taking  this  term  from  the 
heaviness  of  the  iron,  which  was  causative  of  the  baptism  of 
the  axe.  Carson  rejects  this  term  because  it  was  not  adapted 
to  express  an  element  for  a  dippiny^  for  which  his  erring  theory 
evermore  cries  out. 


BAPTISM  IN  THE  DEPTH  OF  ERROR.  263 

The  heavy  waters  of  the  Dead  Sea  are  not  well  suited  for 
dipping.  The  heaviness  of  the  iron,  certainly,  was  not  the 
element  into  which  the  axe  was  dipped. 

AVhat  must  be  thought  of  the  theory  of  a  word  whose  in- 
exorable demands  require  tlie  sacrifice  of  grammatical  forms, 
the  disregard  of  the  evident  design  of  a  writer,  and  the  meta- 
morphosis of  heavy  iron  into  an  element  for  dipping? 

I  bring  no  charge  of  designed  wrong  against  Dr.  Carson. 
His  theor}',  conscientiously  and  tenaciously  held,  demands  a 
dipping,  and  he  will  "  make  it  find  him  one  in  the  sands  of 
the  desert."  No  wonder,  then,  when  this  Classic  Patristic 
writer  gives  him  none,  he  "makes"  his  theory  find  one.  It 
is.  as  easy  to  turn  heavy  iron,  or  heavy  sins,  into  a  pool  of 
water,  as  desert-sands.  But  Hercules  may  perish  through 
exhaustion.  And  the  theory,  which  amuses  itself  with  such 
freaks  of  power,  will  hardly  live  forever. 

TERTULLIAN. 

"  Mersed  in  the  Depth  of  Error  J^ 

Tertullian  here  introduces  us  to  the  element  in  which,  by 
verbal  suggestion,  the  baptism  takes  place.  It  is  important 
that  it  should  receive  attention.  It  is  as  obvious  that  Ter- 
tullian speaks  of  the  element,  as  that  Justin  speaks  of  the 
agency.  The  latter  takes  weight  out  of  the  iron  agency,  in 
the  first  baptism,  and  attributes  it  to  "sin,"  the  agency  iu 
the  second  baptism;  the  former  takes  "depth"  out  of  the 
river-element,  and  attributes  it  to  "  error,"  the  element,  by 
verbal  suggestion,  in  which  the  "hardness"  (taken  out  of  the 
axe)  "of  the  age  is  mersed." 

How  is  this  language  to  be  treated  ?  We  start  out  with 
the  admission,  by  all,  that  there  is  no  mersion  in  fact,  and, 
on  my  own  responsibility,  I  add,  that  there  is  no  mersion  in 
error  possible  in  imagination.  "What  process  of  interpreta- 
tion shall  be  used  ? 

The  theory  says:  Convert  "error"  into  a  pool  of  water, 
and  all  runs  smoothly.  Let  us  see.  If  we  arc  to  have  a 
water-pool,  then  all  its  accessories  must  come  along  with  it. 


264  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

We  must  have  something  to  be  clipped.  What  is  it?  Is  it 
replied,  "the  hardness  of  the  age?"  Very  well.  And  now 
that  this  "object"  is  deposited  by  the  pool,  pray  tell  us,  as 
a  help  to  our  imagination,  what  it  is  like;  what  is  its  shape, 
color,  weight,  and  size  ?  "Error  "  having  been  transformed 
into  tcater,  there  is  now  embarrassment  in  getting  "hardness 
of  the  age  "  dipped  into  it.  Into  what  shall  this  be  transformed 
to  meet  the  exigency?  Into  a  stone  ?  into  a  stick  of  wood? 
into  a  lump  of  iron?  That  would  meet  the  "hardness"  of 
the  age  ;  but  it  should  not  be  too  large,  for  then  it  would  be 
too  heavy  to  be  dipped.  Shall  it  be  a  human  being?  I^ot 
an  infant;  that  could  be  dipped,  but  the  theory  don't  like  the 
baptism  of  little  children.  Then  let  it  be  a  fall-grown  adult, 
and  he  can  help  dip  himself  by  that  peculiar  mode,  known 
to  the  theory,  oi walking  into  the  water.  But  this  Mr.  "Hard- 
ness of  the  Age"  must  not  walk  too  far  into  the  water,  for 
while  walking  will  answer  for  dipping  the  feet,  it  will  not 
answer  for  dipping  the  head — at  least  so  we  are  told.  Then 
we  must  have  a  dipper.  AVho  shall  it  be?  "Will  some  friend 
of  the  theory  answer?  If  not,  we  must  apply  to  old  Justin. 
He  says,  "sin  "  is  the  dipper.  But  "  sin  "  can  no  more  put 
"hardness  of  the  age"  (metamorphosed  into  a  ^^ Mister") 
into  the  water,  than  "hardness  of  the  age"  could  get  into 
the  water  without  such  metamorphosis.  If"  Sin  "  is  to  offici- 
ate as  a  dipper  into  water  of  Mr.  "  Hardness  of  the  Age,"  then 
"Sin"  must  also  take  shape.     What  shall  it  be? 

"  Before  the  gates  there  sat 
On  either  side  a  formidable  shape: 
The  one  seemed  woman  to  the  waist  and  fair, 
But  ended  foul  in  many  a  scaly  fold 
Voluminous  and  vast,  a  serpent  arm'd 
With  mortal  sting:  about  her  middle  round 
A  cry  of  Hell  hounds,  never  ceasing,  bark'd 
With  wide  Cerberean  mouths  full  loud,  and  rung 
A  hideous  poal:  yet  when  they  list,  would  creep, 
If  aught  disturbed  their  noise,  into  her  womb, 
And  kennel  there,  yet  there  still  bark'd  and  iiowl'd, 
Witliin  unseen.  .  .  .  and  me  they  caW d 'Siti  \  " 

Fearful  administratrix  this!     But,  alas!  none  other  can 


BAPTISM    IN   THE    DEPTH    OF    ERROR.  265 

officiate  at  the  baptism  of  the  "hardness  of  the  age."  We 
have  now  got  the  element,  and  the  object,  and  the  adminis- 
tratrix. What  next?  The  baptism.  What  is  a  baptism? 
"  The  complete  subjection  of  an  object  to  the  influence  of  a 
liquid."  (Carson,  p.  80.)  Bj  what  act  is  this  to  be  secured? 
Letting  pass,  now,  the  impracticable  and  piebald  character 
of  a  union  of  baptism  and  dipping,  I  would  inquire  what  is 
the  final  result  of  dipping  Mr.  Hardness  of  the  Age,  by 
Mistress  Sin,  into  a  pool  of  water?  "  He  is  completely  sub- 
jected to  the  influence  of  water."  In  what  respect  ?  Is  he 
drowned?  "Ko."  Is  he  washed?  "jSTo."  Is  he  made  very 
wet?  "  That  depends  upon  what  suit  he  wore."  Well,  I  do 
not  know  what  other  complete  influence  of  water  there  is; 
but  make  it  what  you  will  it  is  the  full  influence  of  water. 
Then,  pray  tell  us  what  bearing  the  full  influence  of  water, 
brought  to  bear  by  "sin,"  on  a  "hard  age"  has  to  do  with 
the  baptism  in  ^^ error"  spoken  of  by  Tertullian  ? 

Was  there  ever  a  greater  rhetorical  and  logical  blunder 
than  the  conversion  of  "  error"  into  a  pool  of  water?  This 
"  error"  of  Tertullian  is  as  unalterable  as  the  poles;  around 
it  every  attendant  conception  must  revolve.  It  is  placed 
there  by  the  writer  as  a  despot  on  his  throne,  and  every 
word  must  bow  down  in  reverence  to  his  sovereign  power. 
"  Sin  "  and  "  age  "  are,  also,  unalterable  words.  "  Hardness," 
"heaviest,"  "depth,"  "mersion,"  "in,"  may  all  receive 
modification;  but  "error,"  "  sin,"  and  "age"  must  abide. 
When  these  words  are  used  with  words  directly  expressive 
of  manifestly  impracticable  forms,  it  is  equivalent  to  saying, 
"  Be  on  your  guard ;  take  out  from  these  words  the  thought 
adapted  to  the  case." 

In  the  phrase — "the  age,  by  sin,  is  mersed  in  error" — we 
see,  at  a  glance,  that  in  its  literality  there  is  an  impracticable 
statement.  But  it  comes  from  an  intelligent  source,  and  we 
know  that  there  is  a  rational  thought  in  it.  We  examine 
the  wording  and  perceive  that  "age,"  "sin,"  and  "error" 
must  be  fixed  quantities.  This  conclusion  compels  us  to 
seek  a  solution  of  the  thought  in  "  mersed  in."  We  glance 
over  its  usage  in  relations  where  its  literal  demand  is  met. 


266  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

and  mersion,  envelopment,  intnsposition  takes  place,  and 
nothing  more.  "We  take  our  discovery  and  apply  a  mersion- 
euvelopment  to  solve  the  difficulty.  But  we  find  that  it  will 
not  answer.  The  nature  of  "error"  is  not  such  as  to  allow 
an  object  to  get  within  it,  so  as  to  be  enveloped  by  it.  We 
try  again;  and  find  objects  "  mersed  in"  a  great  variety  of 
elements  in  which,  beside  the  envelopment,  there  is  the 
additional  feature  of  controlling  influence  proceeding  from 
the  enveloping  element  over  its  object,  and,  farther,  that 
in  such  cases  the  envelopment  is  simply  a  means  to  an  end. 
"We  return  with  our  spoils  and  try  again.  Having  already 
found  that  envelopment  is,  ex  necessitate  rei,  out  of  the  case, 
we  apply  that  which  is  the  invariable  attendant  upon  certain 
mersious,  and  is  the  sole  end  for  which  certain  other  mer- 
eious  are  sought,  namely,  controlling  influence.  The  phrase 
then  reads — "  the  age,  by  sin,  mersed  m=siibject  to  the  con- 
trolling influence  of  error."  "  Mersed  in "  is  suggestive  of 
envelopment  as  the  source  of  the  influence;  but  envelop- 
ment is  not,  itself,  usable,  and  we  throw  it  aside  for  that 
which  is  demanded,  namely,  influence. 

Is  not  this  process  simple,  intelligible,  satisfactory  in  its 
results,  and  harmonious  with  the  laws  of  language  develop- 
ment? 

"  llersos  in  caligine" — "  in  j^eccato" — "?».  hlasphemia^' — "  in 
dementia.'^  Souls  mersed  in  darkness — in  sin — in  blasphemy — 
in  dementia — are  other  cases  of  baptism  spoken  of  by  Ter- 
tullian,  which  demonstrate  the  ineptness  of  a  water-pool  for 
such  baptism.  Here  are  specific  influences,  most  marked 
in  character  and  most  diverse  from  each  other.  Mersion  in 
water  is  not  calculated  to  show  forth  any  one  of  them;  for 
there  is  nothing  in  water  influence  which  resembles  spiritual 
darkness^  or  sin,  or  blasphemy,  or  dementia.  If  it  is  said  that 
it  is  not  because  of  resemblance  between  the  influence  of 
water  and  these  intfuences  that  the  pool  is  introduced,  but 
for  the  sake  of  the  mersion,  then  the  case  is,  if  possible,  made 
worse;  for  no  resemblance  can  be  here,  for  no  intnsposition 
in  spiritual  darkness,  or  sin,  or  blasphemy,  or  dementia, 


ANOTHER    KIND    OF   BAPTISM.  267 

exists  in  fact,  or  can  exist  in  conception.  There  is  no  mer- 
sion  in  any  one  element  which  can  sliaclow  forth  these  varied 
baptisms.  It  is  impracticable  to  get  a  varied  element  ap- 
propriate to  each.  We  repudiate,  therefore,  the  whole  thing 
as  a  search  after  truth  where  it  is  not  to  be  found;  and  take 
the  grand  feature  of  controlling  influence,  uncolored  by  any 
specific  quality,  and  submit  it  for  the  stamp  of  character  to 
any  and  every  particular  case,  whether  it  be  "soul  dark- 
ness," "  sin,"  in  general,  "  blasphemy"  in  particular,  mental 
"imbecility,"  or  what  not. 

If  in  the  development  of  language  any  word  ever  lost  au 
element  which  was  originally  characteristic  of  it,  such  a  word 
is  l^aTzrHiu).  And  if  ever  jSd-Tio  lost  in  the  course  of  usage  (he 
act  of  dipjnng,  (originally  its  grand  and  sole  characteristic,) 
then,  ^aTTu'Cu)  has,  as  certainly,  lost  in  the  course  of  usage  the 
condition  of  envelopment,  which  was,  originally,  its  grand  and 
sole  characteristic.  If  the  one  word  came  by  varied  steps 
of  progression  to  express,  directly,  dyeing ;  the  other  came, 
by  a  similar  process,  to  express,  directly,  controlling  influence. 

"  Aliud  genus  Baptismatis." 

When  Ambrose  speaks  of  "another  kind  of  baptism,"  he 
is  not  speaking,  like  Justin,  of  a  baptism  which,  while  differ- 
ing in  nature  and  in  all  other  attendant  features  from  the 
mersed  axe,  still,  resembles  it  in  its  most  essential  feature, 
namely,  that  of  lost  condition ;  but  he  speaks  of  a  wholly 
different  kind  of  baptism  from  both  of  these;  a  baptism 
which  is  grounded  on  the  passing  of  the  axe  out  of  a  lost 
condition  into  a  saved  condition.  If  a  seal  were  needed  to 
be  affixed  to  tlie  tomb  of  this  thrice  slain  theory  of  "dipping 
and  nothing  but  dipping  through  all  Greek  literature,"  we 
have  it  here  furnished  to  our  hand.  The  image  stamped 
upon  this  seal  is  that  of  "Ambrose;"  the  superscription  is — 
"Aliud  genus  baptismatis."  Was  anything  ever  more  ut- 
terly removed  from  a  dipping  than  the  ascent  of  an  axe  from 
the  bottom  of  a  river  to  its  surface? 

But,  still  more,  we  have  here  the  most  absolute  proof  that 


268  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

it  is  not  act  of  any  kind  which  characterizes  a  baptism,  but 
condition  marked  by  completeness  and  indefinite  continu- 
ance. The  axe  hy  falling  passes  into  a  lost  condition  caused 
by  enveloping  waters.  The  axe  by  rising  up  passes  into  a 
saved  condition  not  caused  by  any  enveloping  medium. 
Thus  we  see  that  a  complete  change  of  condition,  without 
envelopment,  is,  and  is  well  termed  a  baptism.  Similar 
baptisms  with  this  latter  one  may  be  found  in  Classic  Bap- 
tism (pp.  325,  329).  The  first  is  like  this,  a  baptism  of  iron ; 
but  of  red  hot  iron,  brought  into  a  condition  of  coldness  by  the 
application  of  water,  without  envelopment.  The  second  is 
a  baptism  of  wine  by  pouring  water  into  it;  by  wliich  it 
passes  out  of  an  intoxicating  into  an  unintoxicating  condi- 
tion. It  is  not  true,  then,  that,  even  in  physical  things,  an 
envelopment  is  essential  to  a  baptism.  Completeness  of 
condition,  with  indefiniteness  of  continuance,  is  essential,  in 
all  baptisms,  whether  physical  or  unphysical.  The  axe  is 
brought  into  a  thoroughly  saved  condition  without  limitation 
of  time,  through  the  influence  of  the  wood;  the  hot  iron  is 
brought  into  a  thoroughly  cold  condition  through  the  heat- 
quenching  influence  of  water,  without  limitation  of  time; 
and  the  wine  is  brought  into  a  thoroughly  unintoxicant  con- 
dition, without  limitation  of  time,  through  the  attempering 
influence  of  water. 

The  soul  is  brought  out  of  one  baptism,  indefinitely  long 
and  ruinous  in  its  nature,  into  another  baptism,  indefinitely 
long  and  saving  in  its  nature;  both  of  them  without  en- 
velopment. Ambrose  is  sustained  in  his  views  by  the  ex- 
tracts from  Irenaius  and  Chrysostom. 


BAPTISM    OF   POLLUTIO^^^. 
Job  9:  30,  31. 
"If  I  wash  myself  with  snow-water,  and  make  my  bands 
never  so  clean, 

"  Yet  sluilt  thou  plunge  mo  in  the  ditch,  and  mine  own  clothes 
shall  abhor  mc." 


BAPTISM   BY   POLLUTION.  269 

Translation. 

Kau  TOTS  iv  b'.atpOopa  ^ar^Tiasi^  fie. 

"Even  then  thou  wilt  baptize  me  with  pollution." — Aquila. 

InterpreMtion. 

There  is  no  Patristic  iuterpretation  of  this  passage,  as  a 
baptism,  so  far  as  I  know.  The  usage,  here,  shows  that 
while  the  Greek  appropriates  the  w^ord  to  drunkenness  and 
the  Jew  to  purification,  its  sphere  embraces,  no  less,  sobriety 
and  pollution.  Adjuncts  qualify.  I  have  given  the  transla- 
tion of  the  passage,  as  it  appears  in  the  Greek  version  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  by  Aquila.  His  translation  seems  to  have 
been  governed  more  by  the  moral  intent  of  the  passage,  than 
by  its  wording.  Neither  ^aTzri'^ui  nor  8ta(pdopd  is  a  verbal  trans- 
lation of  the  Hebrew.  Yet  the  spirit  of  the  passage  is  well 
represented.  Rosenmiiller  states  it  thus:  "Quantumvis  me 
purura  esse  et  innocentem  ostendere  voluero,  Deus  tamen 
me  impurissimum  et  injustissimum  ostendet  (in  loc.)."  A 
condition  "most  impure  and  most  unrighteous,"  is  truly  and 
forcibly  represented  by — "thou  wilt  baptize  me  with  pollu- 
tion"— make  me  thoroughly  polluted. 

It  is  unusual  for  the  Classics  to  associate  iv  wnth  the  ele- 
ment within  Avhich  a  mersion  takes  place.  And  as  it  is 
quite  common  for  Jewish  writers  to  employ  this  preposition, 
with  a  dative  agency,  I  have  regarded  it  as  so  used  here. 

The  Hebrew  verb  is  used  both  for  dipping  and  dyeing, 
or  smearing.  It  is  the  same  as  employed  in  expressing  the 
staining  or  smearing  of  Joseph's  coat  witb  blood,  and  is 
there  translated,  in  the  Septuagint,  by  a  word  expressive  of 
this  latter  sense,  and  not  of  a  dipping.  Introduction  into  a 
ditch  or  pit,  containing  mud  and  w^ater,  would  very  thor- 
oughly "smear  wnth  filth." 

The  translation  by  the  Septuagint  is :  "ly-a'xuq  h  pb-w  p.t  k^iaizaat;. 
Here  ha\>coq  seems  to  qualify  rather  an  effect — that  of  smear- 
ing, than  an  act — that  of  dipping.  The  use  of  ^i^  instead  of 
ek  strengthens  the  conclusion,  that  the  object  was  not  to  be 
dipped  into  filth,  but  to  be  polluted  by  it. 


270  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM    OF   DESTRUCTION. 

Psalm  9: 15. 

"The  heathen  are  sunk  down  in  the  pit  that  they  made." 

Translation. 

ij3ai:7C(r0y;(Tav. 


"Demersae  sunt  gentes  in  interitu  quern  fecerunt." — Jerome, 
ix,  1133. 

Interpretation. 

The  Greek  translator  who  here  eraploj's  /?a-T£:'<o  to  repre- 
sent the  Hebrew  word,  is  unknown,  but  his  translation  is 
discriminatingly  made.  The  Hebrew  word  is  not  the  same 
with  that  which  is,  almost  without  exception,  translated  in 
the  Septuagint  by  /?«7rT«*. 

The  Hebrew  has  two  words,  12*0  ^"^^  )^?p5  more  nearly 
resembling  each  other,  both  in  form  and  in  sound,  than  do 
ftdnru)  and  fiaT.TiXto.  These  Hebrew  words  present  the  same 
parallelism  of  differences,  in  their  usage,  with  that  exhibited 
by  the  Greek  words,  as  also  with  that  of  the  Latin  words 
lingo  and  mergo,  and  the  English  words  di'p  and  immerse. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  word  in  this  passage  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  represented  by  /Sarrrw,  or  tingo,  or  dip.  Sucli  words 
not  merely  fail  to  represent  the  sentiment,  but  they  misrep- 
resent it.  They  give  a  contradictory  sentiment.  What  is 
intended  to  be  profound,  they  make  superficial ;  what  is  in- 
tended to  be  thorough,  they  make  trivial;  what  is  intended 
to  issue  in  a  condition  unlimited  in  time  of  continuance, 
they  make  evanescent  as  the  execution  of  the  form  of  an  act. 
Jerome  recognizes  all  this  M'hen  he  translates — "  demersse 
sunt  in  interitu — they  ivere  demersed  in  destruction.''' 

Gesenius,  in  speaking  of  the  relation  of  this  word  to  Avords 
in  other  languages,  says:  "The  primary  syllable  is  here  D^, 
which,  in  the  occidental  languages,  also  has  the  signification 
of  depth  and  of  immersing.  Compare  the  Gothic  diap,  the 
German  ticf,  and  the  English  deep.'' 

While  the  Hebrew,  and  the  Greek,  and  the  Latin,  has 


BAPTISM   OF   DESTRUCTION.  271 

eacli  two  native  words  to  express  the  two  diverse  ranges  of 
thought,  unhappily  the  English  has  not.  The  former  He- 
brew word,  and  the  Greek  /Janrw,  the  Latin  tingo^  and  the 
EngHsh  dip,  are  as  like  to  each  other  as  though  they  were 
all  Shaksperian  Dro^nios. 

But  when  the  latter  Hebrew  word  is  mated  with  ^a-Kxilco  and 
merrjo,  the  English  language  cannot  offer  any  like-featured, 
native-born  Antilochus,  as  their  counterpart.  Hence  the 
embarrassment  of  translating  /3a:rrj'Cw,  especially  in  some  as- 
pects of  its  usage.  To  remedy  this  language-deficiency,  we 
have  borrowed  a  word  from  the  Latin,  and  that,  unfortu- 
nately, in  a  compound  instead  of  a  simple  form.  But,  in 
borrowing  a  word,  we  cannot  borrow  its  varied  usage.  That 
is  made  by  the  exigencies  of  a  people.  And  it  originates  pe- 
culiarities of  meaning  among  different  nations,  and  among 
the  same  people  in  different  ages,  in  the  use  of  words  having 
the  same  thought  in  their  first  use.  Of  all  influences  modi- 
fying the  usage  of  words,  none  is  more  powerful  than  the 
religious  conceptions  of  a  people.  And,  of  all  religions, 
none  can  parallel  the  demand  which  must  be  made  by  a  re- 
vealed religion  introducing  conceptions  to  which  the  minds 
of  men,  before,  were  strangers.  Is  it  surprising,  under  these 
circumstances,  that  there  should  be  some  embarrassment  in 
finding  a  perfect  representation,  in  English,  of  a  Greek  word, 
borrowed  out  of  heathenism,  to  denote  Jewish  religious  con- 
ceptions, and  then  used  to  convey  Christian  religious  thought, 
which  in  some  respects  Avas  essentially  diverse  from  the  Jew- 
ish ?  If  we  have  found  it  necessary  to  enlarge  the  language 
of  common  life,  by  borrowing  immerse  from  the  Latin,  is  it 
strange  that  we  should  find  no  usage  among  us  of  this  for- 
eign word  which  meets  the  religious  application  of  the  Greek 
word?  And  who  should  complain  if,  instead  of  forcing  a 
new  role  of  duty  upon  this  Latin  stranger,  we  should  bor- 
row, again,  for  religious  usage,  baptize  from  the  Greek? 

If,  however,  the  theorists  should  persist  in  aflirming,  that 
"the  suggestion  of  difficulty  in  the  translation  is  all  a  pre- 
tence," we  will  maintain  our  equanimity  by  gazing  on  their 
desperate  floundering  amid  dip,  and  plunge,  and  sink,  and 


272  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

flow,  and  bathe,  and  whelm,  immerse  and  immerge,  demerge 
and  submerge,  and  compassionately  saying  {soito  voce),  "Poor 
suft'erers,  they  are  baptized  in  this  dark  abyss  of  words,  find- 
ing no  standing-place,  because  their  mother  tongue  gave 
them  no  word  to  rest  their  foot  upon !" 


BAPTISM   OF  SUFFEEING 

Psalm  69: 1,  2. 

"  Save  me,  O  God!  for  the  waters  have  come  in  unto  my  soul. 
''I  sink  in  deep  mire,  where  there  is  no  standing:  I  am  come 
into  deep  waters,  where  the  floods  overflow  me." 

Translation. 

'EjSa-TiffOrjV  e?q  aTtepavrow:  xaraduffSf;,  xa)  oux  k'ffzi  ardaiq. 
"  I  am  baptized  into  boundless  depths,  and  there  is  no  standing. 
"  I  have  come  into  the  depths  of  the  waters,  and  the  flood  has 
overflowed  me." — Symmachus. 

^Evs-dyrjv  eiq  Hhv  [iu6oo   .   .   .   xai  xaTaiy)q  xareTzovriffi  /is. 

"  I  am  brought  into  the  mud  of  the  abyss,  and  there  is  no  stand- 
ing-place under  me. 

"  I  have  come  into  the  depths  of  the  sea,  and  a  tempest  has 
engulfed  me." — Se2)tuagint. 

"  Infixus  sum  in  limo  profundi  .  .  .  et  tempcstas  demersit  me." 
"I  am  infixed  in  the  mud  of  the  deep,  and  there  is  no  solid 

ground.    I  have  come  into  the  depth  of  the  sea,  and  the  tempest 

has  demerged  me." — Jerome,  v,  468. 

Interpretation. 

Tlie  Hebrew  word,  with  which  we  have  to  do  in  this  pas- 
sage, is  the  same  as  in  the  passage  just  considered.  It  is, 
therefore,  well  represented  by  l^aTzril^m,  It  could,  by  no  pos- 
sibility, be  represented  by  iSaTZTio. 

The  Septuagint  does  not  use  iSaTCTi!:^  in  translating,  but  it 
repudiates  fid-ruj  by  employing  a  word  which  brings  its  ob- 
ject into  a  changed  condition,  where  there  is  certainly  every 


BAPTISM   OF   SUFFERING.  273 

opportunity  for  a  complete  influence  to  be  exerted  over  it, 
ami  leaves  it  there.  In  other  words,  the  substitute  does  every- 
thing which  the  principal  would  have  done.  It  performs  a 
baptism  just  as  well  as  /Sa-ri'^co  could  have  done,  and,  in  ad- 
dition, is  so  complaisant  as  to  tell  us  how  it  was  done,  on 
which  point  [ia-ri%u)  is  ever  dumb  with  silence.  The  mode 
used  in  this  case  is  the  same  as  that  used  by  the  theorists, 
who  bring  into  the  water  their  disciples,  but  who  strangely 
say,  that  "this  is  not  baptism,  it  is  only  immersion."  And 
what  is  baptism?  "Baptism  is  the  dipping  of  the  nobler 
part  (head  and  shoulders),  with  invocation  of  the  Trinity." 
Indeed  !  I  thought  that  the  new  version  of  the  theory  was, 
that  "baptism  was  immersion,  and  that  immersion  was  bap- 
tism;" but  it  seems  that  "immersion"  has  a  non-religious 
meaning,  "bringing"  the  more  ignoble  part  of  the  body 
"into  the  water;"  while  "baptism"  has  a  religious  mean- 
ing, bringing  the  more  noble  part  of  the  human  form  into, 
the  water,  by  dipping  and  invocation.  It  seems  then,  after 
all,  that  the  Latin-English  word  has  a  vulgar  meaning,  and 
that  the  Greek  will  find  his  way  into  the  religious  vocabulary. 
The  translation  by  Jerome  says  nothing  about  the  mode 
in  which  the  baptism  was  accomplished;  neither  does  he 
translate  by  mergo  expressing  condition;  but  he  employs  a 
word  which  gives  position  to  the  baptized  object.  This  posi- 
tion l3d7:zio  could  never  give,  (for  it  can  give  "position"  to 
nothing,  as  dipping  is  an  unresting  movement,.)  but  /Sa-nTw 
(primary,)  always  gives  position  to  its  object  together  with 
condition,  which  position  and  condition  are  "fixed,"  as  Je- 
rome says,  until  some  foreign  influence  shall  disturb  them. 


Figure. 

Those  friends  of  ours  who  have  been  so  often  chidden  for 
stretching  out  their  dipping-wanci  toward  every  object  in 
air,  and  earth,  and  sea,  and  under  the  sea,  to  transmute  it 
mio  figure,  may  here  feast  on  figure,  unforbidden — should  it 
prove  to  their  liking. 

Dr.  Carson,  after  waiting  by  the  sea-coast  twelve  hours, 
watching  the  flow  and  reflow  of  its  tidal  waves,  exclaims, 

18. 


274  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

"  Figure!  covered  and  bare,  a  dipping."  David  is  now  in 
a  "  covered"  condition  of  baptism;  he  wishes  to  be  made 
"  bare."  What  help  can  the  theory  bring  him  ?  If  he  is 
undergoing  a  dipping  merely,  his  "covering"  will  last  but  a 
moment.  If  he  is  dipped  catachrestically  by  the  ocean  tide, 
he  will  be  made  "  bare,"  certainly,  in  twelve  hours.  But 
David  has  gone  down  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  and  he  is 
there  '•  infixed  in  its  mud."  Will  it  be  of  much  comfort  to 
say  to  such  a  one  —  "You  are  only  baptized,  and  to  baptize 
is  to  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature; 
and  to  dip  is  to  cover  and  make  bare;  therefore,  don't  be 
discouraged,  you  will  soon  be  un-dipped."  Whether  these 
comforting  words  were  drowned  in  the  roaring  of  the  stormy 
billows,  or  not,  I  cannot  undertake  to  say;  but  they  do  not 
seem  to  have  given  David  much  comfort.  In  the  anguish 
of  his  imperilled  and  helpless  condition  he  cries,  "  Save  me, 
O  God,  for  the  waters  have  come  in  unto  my  soul !  "  Because 
baptism  in  water  is,  of  its  own  proper  force,  deadly,  David 
employs  it  in  figure  to  express  his  condition,  by  reason  of 
troubles,  as  one  that  must  speedily  issue  in  his  destruction, 
without  Divine  intervention. 

The  theorist  who  woukl  convert  this  baptism  into  a  dip- 
ping must  either  transcend,  beyond  all  measuring-lines,  the 
wisdom  of  the  Son  of  David,  or  fall  so  far  below,  that, — 
well,  he  should  not  use  too  hot  words  in  "  sending  Gabriel  to 
school,"  if  that  angel  should  modestly  enter  a  caveat  against 
a  too  dogmatic  enunciation  of  "  the  theory." 


BAPTISM  OF  SINCEEITY. 

Canticles  5: 12. 

"His  eyes  are  as  the  eyes  of  doves,  by  the  rivers  of  waters, 
washed  with  milk  and  fitly  set." 

Inlcrprdation. 

"  Baptizat  in   lacte  Dominus,  id  est,  in  Sinceritatc.    Et  isti 
sunt   qui  vcre  baplizantur  in  lacte,  qui  sine  dole  croduut,  et 


BAPTISM   OF   SINCERITY.  275 

Jiuram  fidem  deferunt,  ut  immacnlatam  induant  gratiam.  Ideo 
Candida  Sponsa  ascendit  ad  Christum;  quia  in  lacte  baptizata 
est." 

"  The  Lord  baptizes  with  milk,  that  is,  with  Sincerity.  And 
they  are  those  who  are  truly  baptized  with  milk,  who  believe 
without  hypocrisy,  and  offer  a  pure  faith,  that  they  may  put 
on  unspotted  grace.  Therefore  the  Spouse  ascends  to  Christ 
clothed  in  white,  because  she  was  baptized  with  milk." — Am- 
brose, ii,  1431. 

"Denique  de  ipsa  anima  dicitur:  Qu(e  est  h(ec,  guee  ascendit 
dealbata  (Cant.  8:5)?  Antequam  baptizaretur,  ipsa  est  quae 
dicebat:  Nigra  sum  —  Erat  enim  nigra,  tenebrosa,  peccatorum 
horrore  deformis :  sed  postea  .  .  .  dealbata."  .  .  . 

"Finally,  it  is  said  of  the  soul,  itself:  'Who  is  this,  that 
ascends  made  white  ?'  It  is  the  same  that  said,  before  baptism, 
*I  am  black.'  .  .  .  For  it  was  black,  gloomy,  and  deformed  by 
the  dreadfulness  of  sin ;  but  after  that,  having  been  cleansed  by 
baptism,  it  merited  the  remission  of  siijs;  made  white  it  ascends 
to  Christ." — Ambrose,  i,  875. 

Translation. 

I  have  translated  "  in  lacte,"  wUh  milk,  1.  Because  the 
Patrists  use  the  preposition  in  this  sense,  times  without 
number.  2.  Because  it  is  a  baptism  of  the  soul,  and  there- 
fore could  not  be  "  in  milk."  3.  Because  the  baptizer  is  the 
Lord,  who  never  baptizes  in  milk,  or  in  water,  or  in  any  other 
physical  substance. 

The  use  of  the  term  "milk"  is  purely  formal,  suggested 
by  the  use  in  the  text,  and  is  not  designed  to  carry  the 
thought  over  to  a  physical  fluid,  but  to  the  "  sincere  rnilk  of 
the  word."  Irenaeus  (931),  speaking  of  the  corrupters  of 
divine  truth,  likens  them  to  those  who  mix  gypsum  with 
water  and  ofier  it  for  milk,  deceiving  through  the  similarity 
of  color,  and  adds :  "  In  Dei  lacte  gypsum  male  miscetur. 
It  is  a  bad  thing  to  mix  gypsum  (error)  with  God's  milk 
(truth)."  On  the  next  page,  Irenseus  shows,  most  unmis- 
takably, the  use  of  the  preposition  "in,"  as  here  translated. 

"In  Christi,  enim,  nomine  subauditur  qui  unxit,  et  ipse  qui 
uuctus  est,  et  ipsa  uuctio  in  qua  uuctus  est.    Et  unxit  quidem 


276  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

Pater,  nnctns  est  vero  Filius,  in  Spiritu,  qui  est  uiictio  .  .  . 
significaus  et  unguentem  Patrem,  et  uuctum  Filium,  et  unc- 
tionem,  qui  est  Spiritus."  If  it  is  contrary  to  all  reason  to 
say,  that  the  Messiah  was  inducted  into  his  Kingly,  Priestly, 
and  Prophetical  offices,  by  being  anointed  in,  and  not  withy 
the  anointing  oil — that  the  Father  anointed  the  Son  in,  not 
with  the  Spirit — then  it  is  "  contrary  to  all  reason"  to  deny 
that  the  usage  claimed  does  truly  exist.  And  here,  as  sug- 
gested by  this  anointing,  I  may  quote  a  passage  from  a  more 
modern  writer,  contained  in  a  note  in  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
(597) — "  refert  eos  non  in  aqua,  sed  in  oleo  baptizasse.  Id 
Priscillianistis  in  Hispania  forsan  peculiare — he  relates  that 
they  baptized,  not  ivith  water,  but  loith  oil.  This,  perhaps, 
was  peculiar  to  the  Priscillianists  in  Spain."  If  it  is  not 
likely  that  any  persons  dipped,  or  immersed,  men  and  wo- 
men m  oil  (!),  then  it  is  likely  that  "in"  means  "with," 
and,  rejecting  water,  these  heretics  were  "baptized  icith 
oil."  Besides,  we  are  told  (1075),  that  the  Greek  churches 
anointed  the  whole  body  with  oil  (ex  oleo),  while  the  Latin 
churches  anointed  only  parts  of  the  body,  and,  especially, 
"  in  Spain  only  the  ears  and  the  mouth — in  Hispania  aures  et 
OS."  IsTow,  I  cannot  say  whether  these  "  Spanish"  heretics 
followed  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church,  or  of  the  Latin,  in 
their  use  of  oil  in  baptism,  but  in  neither  case  would  they 
find  a  dipping  into  oil. 

Interp7'etation. 

Milk  is  used  (verbally)  in  this  baptism  as  the  fit  symbol 
of  sincerity.  It  k  not  employed  because  it  was  adapted  for 
dipping,  but  because  of  its  color  ;  just  as  snow  is  referred  to 
in  Scripture  because  of  its  whiteness.  Milk  could  not  be 
used  because  of  its  cleansing  qualities;  for  it  is  not  so  used 
in  fact,  nor  is  it,  by  its  nature,  adapted  to  such  use.  It  is 
perfect!}'  adapted  by  its  uncolored  color  to  represent  unadul- 
terated sincerity.  "The  Lord  baptizes  with  milk,  that  is 
with  sincerity,  into  unspotted  grace."  In  an}'  case  it  will  be 
observed,  that  this  baptism  is  intended  to  set  forth  simply 
and  solely  a  complete  change  of  condition.   This  is  strikingly 


BAPTISM   OF   REPENTANCE.  277 

set  forth  by  Ambrose  in  the  second  quotation.  Before  this 
baptism  the  soul  is  "  bLack,"  afterwards  it  is  "  made  white." 
The  Lord  is  the  baptizer;  the  absence  of  hypocrisy  and  tlie 
presence  of  a  pure  faith  is  the  means,  and  the  putting  on  of 
unspotted  grace  is  the  new,  changed,  baptized  condition. 

This  condition  is  not  capable  of  being  represented  by  an 
evanescent  dipping,  nor  a  momentary  covering;  but  is  of  un- 
limited continuance. 

Whether  "  the  Great  Baptizer"  employs  "  milk,"  or  "  the 
flaming  sword,"  to  effect  his  baptism,  he  brings  all  who  are 
the  subjects  of  it  into  a  thoroughly  changed  condition,  which, 
in  its  nature,  has  no  limitation  of  time  for  its  continuance, 
and  which  no  foreign  influence  can  change.  Until  some  one 
can  be  found,  mightier  than  he,  to  undo  what  he  has  done — 
able  "  to  pluck  those  whom  the  Father  has  given  him  out 
of  his  hand  " — the  baptism  of  the  Lord  will  bring  his  people 
into  a  condition  of  holy  purity  which  shall  never,  no  never, 
have  an  end. 


BAPTISM  OF  EEPENTANCE. 
Isaiah  1 :  16,  17. 

"  AVasb  ye,  make  you  clean;  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings 
from  before  mine  eyes;  cease  to  do  evil; 

"Learn  to  do  well;  seek  judgment;  reheve  the  oppressed; 
judge  the  fatherless ;  plead  for  the  widow." 

Interiweiation. 

Aid.  TOO  Xourpad,  ouv  rrj^  iJ.tza'Mna':  y.ai  rr^q  y^mascoq  rou  0£od,  o   .    .   .   . 

8  Tzporjydptut  to  j-tdnrKT/ia 7V  yap   SifsXor   ixecvou  ISaTtriffpMToq,  8 

....   BaTTTiffOifjTe  rijv  (/'u^fi^v  and  opyr^q,  xai  and 

"Through  the  washing  of  repentance  and  of  the  knowledge 
of  God,  which  was  established  on  account  of  the  transgression 
of  the  people  of  God,  as  Isaiah  declares,  we  have  believed  and 
make  known  that  this  very  baptism  which  he  foreannouuced  is 
the  only  one  able  to  cleanse  the  repenting ;  this  is  the  water  of 
hfe. 

"But  the  cisterns  which  you  have  dug  out  for  yourselves  are 


278  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

broken  and  are  useless  to  you.  For  of  what  use  is  that  baptism 
Tvhich  cleanses  the  flesh  and  the  body  only  ?  Baptize  the  soul 
from  anger,  and  from  covetousness,  and  from  envy,  and  from 
hate,  and  behold  the  body  is  pure." — Justin  Martyr,  504. 

KaSw^  (ff^fflv  'Ilffoiaq,  AooaaaSs — "I<^=:^,  d/a-r^rk,  ttcoc  Tzpoe'tizev  6  7tpo^rJTrj<; 
TO  Tou  ^aizTiaiiaruq  xaddpatov ; 

"  As  Isaiah  says,  '  Wash  ye ' .    Dost  thou  see,  beloved,  how 

the  prophet  declared  beforehand  the  purifying  character  of  this 
baptism  ?" — Hippolytus,  860. 

"  Lavamini,  mundi  estote.  Pro  superioribus  victimis,  et  .  .  .  . 
Evangelii  mihi  placet  religio:  ut  baptizimini  in  sanguine  meo  per 
lavacrum  regenerationis,  quod  solum  potest  peccata  dimittere." 

"  Wash  ye,  be  clean.  Instead  of  former  victims,  and  burnt- 
offerings,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts,  and  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
of  goats  :  and  instead  of  incense,  and  new  moons,  the  Sabbath, 
feast  and  fast  days.  Kalends  and  other  solemnities,  the  religion 
of  the  Gospel  pleases  me;  that  ye  may  be  baptized  by  my  blood 
through  the  washing  of  regeneration,  which  alone  can  take  away 
sins." — Jei'ome,  iv,  35, 

BAPTISM    OF   THE   BODY   AND    OF  THE   SOUL. 

Two  baptisms  are  here  expressly  mentioned  by  Justin : 
1.  Baptism  of  the  body.  2.  Baptism  of  the  soul.  The  theory 
remorselessly  insists  that  the  body  must  be  dipped  in  fact, 
and  that  the  soul  must  be  dipped  in  imagination.  For  the 
word  means  nothing  but  dip  and  undergoes  no  change  when 
used  in  figure. 

Carson  says,  (in  capitals,)  "  My  position  is,  that  it  always 

SIGNIFIES   TO   dip;    NEVER    EXPRESSING   ANYTHING    BUT    MODE" 

(p.  55).  He  also  says  (p.  57),  "I  undertake  to  prove  it  has 
but  one  meaning.  I  blame  him  for  giving  dift'erent  mean- 
ings when  there  is  no  real  difference  in  the  meaning  of  this 
word.  He  assigns  to  it  figurative  meanings.  I  maintain 
that  in  figures  there  is  no  different  meaning  of  the  word. 
It  is  only  a  figurative  application.  The  meaning  of  the  word 
is  always  the  same."  Dr.  Carson  has  got  into  such  an  in- 
veterate habit  of  boxing  everybody's  cars,  that  it  is  not  at 
all  strange  that  occasionally,  his  hand  should  bo  brought 


BAPTISM    OF   TUE    BODY   AND    OF   THE   SOUL.  279 

down  somewhat  heavily  upon  his  own.  Head  alongside  of 
the  preceding,  this,  "Aristophanes  says:  '  Lest  I  dip  you  into 
a  Sardian  dyc.^  The  figure  is  but  low,  and  is  just  the  same 
as  if  a  pugilist  with  us  should  say,  I  will  dip  you  in  vermilion. 
It  is  an  allusion  to  the  dyer's  art,  and  means  I  will  heatyou^ 
till  you  shall  be  covered  all  over  loith  your  own  blood.  It  would 
be  to  no  purpose  to  allege  that  when  a  man  is  beaten,  he  is 
not  literally  dipped  in  his  blood,  but  the  blood  runs  over  him. 
This  would  indicate  a  total  misconception  of  the  figure.  The 
likeness  does  not  consist  in  the  manner  but  in  the  effects.  1 
will  dip  you  in  vermilion^  is  exactly  the  expression  of  the  poet 
in  English.  He  would  be  a  sorry  critic,  who,  from  this^ 
should  allege  that  the  English  word  dip  signifies  to  run  over,. 
as  blood  from  the  wounded  body." 

We  had  just  been  told  that  /Sarrttw  means  to  dip,  and  that 
it  and  every  other  word  in  figure  undergoes  no  change  of 
meaning,  but  "  the  meaning  is  always  the  same."  And  now, 
in  a  case  of  declared  figure,  we  have  written  down  in  obedience 
to  the  law,  "  dip,"  but  only  to  have  it  scratched  out  by  being 
told,  that  it  is  neither  in  the  figure  of  fact  or  of  imagination ; 
that  in  fact  the  action  is  "run  over,"  and  that  "the  meaning 
is  I  will  beat  you  f  and  that  while  there  is  "allusion  to  the 
dyer's  art,"  the  dyer's  act  of  dipping  lias  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  interpretation.  To  introduce  it  would  be 
"a  total  misconception  of  the  figure.'^  Kow,  if  under  this 
manipulation  both  of  Dr.  Carson's  ears  do  not  tingle,  it  must 
be  because  those  side  appendages  are  in  his  case  missing. 

Self-contradiction  as  to  theory  and  practice,  could  not  be 
more  gross. 

.  The  passage  exhibits  the  same  gross  errors  of  translation 
and  of  interpretation,  (with  the  addition  of  self-contradic- 
tion,) with  those  of  which  he  convicted  Dr.  Gale,  and  for 
which  he  pulled  his  ears  so  lustily.  Gale  says,  the  lake  must 
be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  a  frog,  because  my  theory  says,  the 
word  has  but  one  meaning,  and  is  the  same  literal  or  figura- 
tive. Carson  flouts  at  the  statement  as  an  unheard  of  para- 
dox based  on  a  misunderstanding  of  the  word  and  the  syntax. 
And  yet,  he  falls  into  the  same  identical  errors  in  misunder- 


280  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

standing  the  word  and  the  s^-ntax ;  and  thus,  is  led  by  theory 
to  introduce  a  dipping,  while,  with  unparental  hardness,  he 
rejects  his  offspring  as  having  no  claim,  even  under  the 
wildest  imagination,  to  his  sympathies.  Under  the  influence 
of  an  impracticable  case,  the  omnipresent  dipping  has  dis- 
appeared, and  in  figure  an  act  ceases  to  exist,  and  "the  like- 
ness does  not  consist  in  the  manner  but  in  the  effects.'' 

Dr.  C.'s  T^pioTov  4>sudoq  docs  not  consist  in  the  position,  that 
words  in  true  and  pure  figure  have  the  same  meaning  as  in 
literal  use,  but  in  overlooking  what  he  had  pointed  out  to 
Gale,  the  secondary  meaning  of  iSdnru).  The  remembrance 
of  this  would  have  saved  him  from  the  error  of  supposing 
that  there  was  any  figure  in  the  passage.  It -would,  also, 
have  saved  him  from  the  necessity  of  violating  syntactical 
law  (Kuhner,  p.  403)  respecting  a  double  accusative.  And 
this  would  have  saved  him  from  misleading  the  confiding 
English  reader  by  the  statement,  ^^  Iivill  dip  you  in  vermilion, 
is  exactly  the  expression  in  English."  The  English  counter- 
part of  the  Greek  has  in  it  neither  a  "dip"  nor  an  "in," 
but  is  simply  literal,  "I  will  di/e  you  a  Sardian  dye"  or  "I 
will  color  you  a  Sardian  color." 

It  is,  precisely,  these  same  errors  which  vitiate,  from  first 
to  last,  the  writings  of  the  theorists  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. They  insist  that  fiaTzrH^oj  has  but  one  meaning,  that  it 
has  the  same  meaning  in  figurative  as  in  literal  use,  and  that 
all  cases  where  there  is  no  dipping  in  fact,  must  be  cases  of 
figure.  But  when  they  are  pointed  to  cases  where  no  dip- 
ping is  conceivable  by  imagination,  or  the  attempt  intro- 
duces a  picture  so  grotesque,  that  even  their  rhetorical  sense 
is  shocked,  why  then  we  are  told  (to  the  baldest  stultifica- 
tion of  their  theory)  "the  likeness  does  not  consist  in  the 
manner,  but  in  the  effects."  What  has  a  theory  to  do  with 
"efi'ects,"  whose  alpha  and  omega  is  the  performance  of  a 
naked  act?  Is  not  the  use  of  a  word  (expressive  originally 
of  an  act)  which  is  based  on  effects,  a  secondary  and  not  a 
figurative  use  of  such  word?  Is  not  /3«'7rTw,  (o  dye,  based  on 
the  effects  of /5a-Tw,  to  dip,  and  is  not  such  use  secondary  and 
■diverse  from  the  former?     And,  yet,  we  arc  told  that  while 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   BODY  AND    OF   THE   SOUL.  281 

^ar.TiXu)  means  "to  dip,  and  notbing  but  dip,"  and  bas  a  usage 
based  on,  not  tbe  act,  but  tbe  ejects  of  tbe  act,  still  it  has  no 
secondary  use,  and  "  means  nothing  else,  through  all  Greek 
literature,  but  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip." 

When  Dr.  Cox  sought  relief  from  the  manner  of  Kebu- 
chadnezzar's  dipping  in  the  dew,  he  says:  "It  does  not  imply 
the  manner  in  which  the  eftect  was  produced,  but  the  effect 
itself;  not  the  mode  by  which  the  body  of  the  king  was 
wetted,  but  its  condition,  as  resulting  from  exposure  to  the 
dew  of  heaven."  To  this  Carson  (who  assumes  the  office 
of  whipping  in  his  friends,  when  they  overstep  theory,  and 
enter  the  region  of  truth)  replies:  "About  what  is  he  con- 
tending? Without  doubt,  the  verb  expresses  mode  here  as 
well  as  anywhere  else.  To  suppose  the  contrary,  gives  up 
the  point  at  issue,  as  far  as  mode  is  concerned.  ...  It  does 

not  literally  include  wetting,  at  all Mode  is  as  much 

expressed  here  as  it  is  in  the  commission  of  our  Lord  to  his 
apostles."  Thus,  dip,  which  literally  expresses  no  "effect" 
— not  even  the  "wetting,"  when  it  carries  its  object  into 
water — but  merely  a  naked  act,  and  which,  in  figure,  means 
nothing,  more  or  less,  still,  in  figure,  is  to  be  understood  as 
laying  aside  all  "manner,"  and  to  be  interpreted  solely  by 
its  "effects!" 

This  teacher  of  Gale,  and  Cox,  and  the  Archangel  Gabriel, 
is  a  study. 

The  "flesh  and  body"  baptism,  of  which  Justin  speaks, 
is  called  "baptism,"  not  because  of  resemblance  of  any  act 
performed  in  its  accomplishment  to  any  other  act  done,  but 
because  of  resemblance  to  certain  classes  of  baptism  charac- 
terized by  controlling  influence.  This  influence  proceeded 
from  the  ritual  use  of  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer,  and  eftected  a  Judaic  baptism — the  com- 
plete ceremonial  purification  of  the  body. 

The  "  soul "  baptism  was  not  limited  to  the  Jew.  It  was 
preached  to  the  Jew,  as  Justin  declares,  by  Isaiah,  but  it 
reaches  over  to  the  Christian.  The  "  Martyr  "  says  that  be 
had  received  this  baptism  "through  {Sta)  the  washing  of  re- 
pentance and  the  knowledge  of  God."    llepentance  and  the 


282  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

knowledge  of  God  do  this  washing.  Such  agencies  do  thor- 
ough work.  They  patronize  no  dipping-bath.  They  thor- 
oughly change  the  condition  of  the  soul — as  soap,  a  rough 
towel,  and  hard  friction,  change  that  of  the  body — "wash- 
ing it  from  anger,  and  covetousness,  and  envy,  and  hate." 
And  this  thoroughly  changed  condition,  is  baptism  of  the 
soul,  to  wdiich  Isaiah  calls  the  Jew. 

This  baptism,  "  by  repentance  and  the  knowledge  of  God," 
leads  to  the  notice  of  the  essential  difference  between  bap- 
tism in,  and  baptism  by,  anything.  The  former  phrase  is 
expressive  of  local  position,  the  latter  is  expressive  only  of 
complete  influence.  To  illustrate  :  "A  greasy  fleece  is  dip- 
ped in  a  dye-vat,  but  it  is  not  dipjoed  by  it."  Is  there  any 
contradiction  here?  Does  not  the  diiference  of  phraseology 
clearly  indicate  a  different  sense  in  the  words?  The  first 
dip  announces  the  form  of  act  by  which  the  object  is  put 
into  the  dye,  and  the  second  one  declares  that  the  object 
was  not  influenced  by  the  dye.  This  was  the  phraseology 
used  by  the  Greeks,  and  was  as  intelligible  to  them  as 
"dipped  in,  but  wot  dyed  by,"  would  be  to  us.  Christian 
missionaries  are  said  "to  live  immersed  in  the  sins  of  hea- 
thenism, but  not  to  be  immersed  by  them."  The  one  expres- 
sion is  exhausted  by  expressing  position  without  influence, 
and  the  other,  influence  without  position.  These  truths 
may  be  stated  in  a  reverse  form.  The  hand  may  be  dipped 
by  (the  juice  of  a  berry),  and  not  be  dipped  in  (the  juice  of  a 
berry).  A  man  may  be  immersed  by  sin  (solitary  vice),  and 
not  be  immersed  in  sin  (iniquity  abounding).  Hot  iron  may 
be  immersed  (quenched)  by  water,  and  not  be  immersed  in 
water.  A.  man  may  be  baptized  (intusposition)  in  wine,  and 
not  be  baptized  (made  drunk)  by  wine.  A  man  may  be  bap- 
tized (made  drunk)  by  wine,  and  not  be  baptized  (intusposi- 
tion) in  wine. 

These  diversities  of  phraseology  are  constantly  met  with 
in  the  Classics.  And  it  is  as  certain  that  they  express  dif- 
ferences of  meaning,  as  that  words  are  used  to  express 
thought,  and  not,  according  to  the  Prince  Bishop  of  Autun, 
"  to  hide  thought." 


BAPTISM    OF   THE    BODY   AND    OF   THE    SOUL.  283 

Jerome  well  understood  this  distinction,  when  he  speaks, 
in  the  quotation  made,  of  baptism  by  the  blood  of  Christ — 
ut  baptizimini  in  sanguine  meo.  "In,"  being  here  used,  as 
in  numberless  cases,  with  the  agency.  Had  all  the  scoffing 
murderers  of  the  Crucified  been  baptized  m  his  blood  (as  a 
fluid  element),  they  would  none  the  more  have  been  bap- 
tized by  his  blood  (received  with  "  repentance  and  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  "),  which  cleanses  from  all  sin. 

A  word  or  two,  before  leaving  this  passage,  with  reference 
to  the  special  evidence  Dr.  C.  draws  from  it  for  a  dipping. 
"He  speaks  of  baptism  as  cleansing  the  flesh  and  the  body 
only;  this  shows  that  the  water  was  applied  to  the  body  in 
general"  (p.  490).  So  far  from  showing  the  manner  or  ex- 
tent of  using  water,  it  does  not  show  the  use  of  water  at  all. 
Justin  is  speaking  of  Jewish  rites  as  only  competent  to  effect 
the  ceremonial  purification  of  the  body,  leaving  the  soul  un- 
purified.  He  refers  to  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  or  heifer 
ashes,  or  any  other  thing  competent  to  induce  this  condition. 
There  was  no  dipping  of  the  body  into  water  enjoined  by 
Jewish  ritual  law.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that,  in 
Jewish  rites,  a  sprinkling  cleansed  the  entire  "  flesh  and 
body."  An  argument  is  drawn  from  the  mention  of  cis- 
terns :  "  He  speaks  of  it,  also,  as  referring  to  cisterns  or  pits, 
as  trenches  that  are  dug.  It  must,  then,  have  been  an  im- 
mersion." This  is  another  of  those  marvellous  errors  of 
conception  and  representation,  to  which  a  wrong  theory  cou- 
stringes  its  disciples. 

When  Jehovah,  by  Jeremiah,  says:  "My  people  have  com- 
mitted two  evils;  they  have  forsaken  me,  the  fountain  of  living 
waters,  and  hewed  them  out  cisterns,  broken  cisterns,  that 
can  hold  no  water,"  does  he  complain  that  thej^  have  "  dug 
pits  and  trenches  to  dip  themselves  in,  but  which  have  failed 
of  their  purpose  because  the  bottom  had  fallen  out?"  Just 
as  certainly  as  that  Justin  means  any  such  thing  by  his  ref- 
erence to  this  passage.  Jehovah  is  "the  fountain  of  living 
waters,"  not  to  dip  in,  but  whence  the  soul  may  derive  bless- 
ing, even  life  for  evermore;  while  human  devices,  or  divinely 
appointed  ritual  rites,  abused,  in  being  used  for  other  purposes 


284  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

than  those  designed,  are  "broken  cisterns,"  to  wliicli  men 
apply,  in  vain,  for  blessing  which  accompanies  salvation. 

The  Lord  and  his  "Martyr"  teach  the  same  thing:  Jew- 
ish rites,  at  the  best,  can  but  effect  ceremonial  purification; 
it  is  "  the  water  of  life  "  (repentance  and  the  knowledge  of 
God)  which  "baptizes  the  soul  from  anger,  covetousness, 
envy,  and  hate."  Justin  has  no  reference  to  a  dry  dipping 
in  a  "broken  "  cistern;  although  Dr.  Carson  thinks  that  all 
Israel  received  a  "dry  baptism"  in  passing  through  the  sea. 


BAPTISM   BY  INIQUITY. 

Isaiah  21 : 4. 

"My  heart  panted,  Tearfulness  affrighted:  the  night  of  my 
pleasure  hath  he  turned  into  fear  unto  me." 

SeiJiuagint. 

7j  xapdta  IJ.00  TzXavdzac,  xa\  tj  dvo/ua  fj.s  iSaTzrc^st,  tj  (I'oyi]  /xou  i(J'iff- 

"My  heart  wanders;  iniquity  baptizes  me;  my  soul  is  put 
into  fear." 

BAPTISM    BY   INIQUITY. 

This  passage  has  presented  no  little  embarrassment  to  the 
translator  and  interpreter,  because  of  want  of  verbal  accord 
with  the  Hebrew,  and  because  of  a  failure  in  the  just  appre- 
ciation of  the  word. 

Dr.  Edward  Williams  translates,  "Iniquity  pours  me." 
Translation  by  this  modal  word  must,  like  modal  dip,  fail 
through  lack  of  support  in  usage.  Prof.  Ewing  says:  "The 
subject  of  baptism  is  viewed  as  having  something  i)oured  or 
brought  upon  him." 

Gale,  Hal  ley,  AVilson,  Stuart,  and  others,  translate,  "Ini- 
quity overwhelms  me."     Conant,  "Iniquity  whelms  me." 

This  wide  consent  to  the  introduction  of  "overwhelm"  as 
the  translation  of  a  certain  class  of  baptisms  must  have  sub- 


BAPTISM    BY   INIQUITY.  285 

stantial  ground  to  rest  upon.  Be  that  ground,  however, 
what  it  may,  it  can  have  most  obviously  no  sympatliy  with 
a  dippiiig. 

The  theorists  do  not  translate  such  cases  by  "  immerse," 
because  its  primary  meaning  does  not  answer;  and  because 
its  secondary  meaning,  io  be  earnestly  engaged,  as,  "  I  am  so 
immersed  in  business  that  I  can  attend  to  nothing  else," 
answers  just  as  badly.  "Immerse"  has  no  well-established 
secondary  usage  expressive  of  a  controlling  influence  im- 
parted. In  this  respect  it  fails  in  parallelism  with  the  Greek 
word.  "  Overwhelm  "  has  a  secondary  meaning  derived  from 
primary  use  which  adapts  it,  in  the  absence  of  a  more  per- 
fect word,  for  use  in  such  cases.  Still,  as  overwhelm  and 
^dTZTi^oj  do  not  represent  the  same  form  of  thought  in  primary 
use,  so,  neither  do  they  in  the  derived,  secondary  use.  The 
object  which  is  placed  by  the  Greek  word  in  a  condition  of 
intusposition  is  the  quiet  and  unresisting  recipient  of  in- 
fluence from  the  encompassing  medium,  which  seeks  to  in- 
terpenetrate it  at  all  points.  An  object  which  is  overwhelmed 
is  brought  into  that  condition,  only,  in  consequence  of  its 
resistance  (active  or  passive)  having  been  overcome  by  some 
assailing  agency.  In  accordance  with  these  elements  the 
Greek  word,  in  secondary  use,  is  expressive  of  the  reception 
of  influence  which  controls  condition;  while  the  English 
word,  in  secondary  use,  carries  with  it  an  assailing  power 
"which  triumphs  by  overcoming  resistance,  active  or  passive. 

Hannibal  overcame  all  difficulties,  and  came  over  the 
Alps.  Is  "  overcame,"  here,  used  in  figure,  or  does  it  ex- 
press thought  directly  ?  The  swollen  river  whelmed  over 
the  bridge  and  overwhelmed  the  structure.  Is  this  tautol- 
ogy? Is  not  the  thought  in  "overwhelmed"  essentially 
diverse  from  that  in  "whelmed  over?"  In  the  latter,  the 
sentiment  is  exhausted  by  the  physical  condition  of  the 
bridge  as  covered  by  the  rising  and  flowing  waters;  in  the 
former  word  there  is  nothing  to  do  with  the  covered  con- 
dition of  the  bridge,  except  as  a  means  to  an  end;  and  that 
which  the  other  word  throws  not  a  ray  of  light  upon,  (the 
eflfecf  produced  on  the  structure,)  this  states,  and  it  is  all 


286  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

which  it  states.  This  is  its  meaning.  A  meaning  which  the 
other  form  had  not.  And  it  is  a  meaning  which  has  a  life 
of  its  own,  and  is  capable  of  being  applied  in  any  suitable 
case  where  there  is  no  whelming  flood  present  or  conceiv- 
able.    As,  "  the  blow  overwhelmed  me." 

"  The  troops  came  whelming  over  the  ramparts  and  over- 
whelmed all  opposition."  "  Whohiiing  "  is,  here,  clearly  fig- 
ure; the  resemblance  of  men  thronging  upon,  rising  above, 
and  passing  over  walls,  to  flowing  waters  rising  above  and 
flowing  over  obstacles,  is  clear  and  vivid.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  just  as  certain  that  "  overwhelmed  "  is  not  figure  ; 
but  expresses,  directly,  an  effect  wholly  different  in  nature 
from  the  other.  The  resistance  made  by  the  garrison  is  not 
represented  as  overcome  by  a  flood;  but  by  the  fighting 
after  the  walls  were  flooded  by  the  troops.  Napoleon  was 
over-mastered,  over-come,  over-thrown,  over-powered,  over- 
whelmed, at  Waterloo,  by  English  and  Prussian  power. 
Each  of  these  words  expresses  a  thought  directly  without 
picture  figure,  and  generically  the  same  thought,  to  wit,  a 
resisting  power  subdued  by  a  stronger  power.  In  each  case 
there  is  a  coloring  from  the  source  whence  the  word  springs; 
but  each  has  a  meaning  distinct  from  its  original. 

"  Overwhelm"  represents /3a-r:Tw  in  its  controlling  power, 
but  not  in  its  shade-color  of  resistance  overcome.  The  Greek 
word,  in  this  respect,  belongs  to  the  class  of  words  repre- 
sented by  steep,  imbue,  &c.  The  influence  which  it  exerts  is 
quiet  in  its  operation,  penetrating  in  its  nature,  pervading 
in  its  extent,  and  controlling  in  its  power. 

Those  friends  of  the  theory  who,  in  this  baptism  of  in- 
iquity, turn  coldly  away  from  "dip,"  and  have  no  friendly 
recognition  even  for  a  "  transient  covering,"  but  call  lustily 
on  overwhelm,  to  come  to  their  help,  ought  certainly  to  aban- 
don or  reconstruct  their  conceptions  of  a  word  which  stands 
them  80  little  in  stead  in  the  time  of  need.  Dr.  Carson, 
however,  has  not  lost  a  jot  of  courage  or  confidence.  Ilis 
exposition  of  this  baptism,  laid  alongside  of  "  my  position," 
leads  one  to  marvel  at  the  mental  phenomenon  presented. 

This  is  his  language  (p.  86) :  "  The  expression,  iniquity 


BAPTISM    BY   INIQUITY.  287 

'baptizetli  me,'  does  not  mean  that  iniquity  comes  on  him 
either  hy  popping  or  dipping,  either  by  iiouring  or  sprinkling: 
but  that  his  sin,  which  originated  in  himself,  and  never  was 
put  on  him  in  any  mode,  sunk  him  in  misery.  Our  iniquities 
cauvse  us  to  sink  in  deep  waters.  This  example  is,  with  all 
others  in  which  the  word  occurs,  whether  in  its  literal  or 
figurative  use,  completely  in  our  favor.  Iniquity  is  the  bap- 
tizer,  and  instead  of  popping  the  subjects  of  its  baptism, 
would  sink  them  eternally  in  the  lake  that  burnetii  with  fire 
and  brimstone,  were  they  not  delivered  by  that  which  is 
represented  in  the  baptism  of  Christians." 

If  Dr.  Carson  had  repeated  the  Multiplication  Table  back- 
wards in  proof  of — "  My  position  is,  that  it  always  signi- 
fies TO  dip;  never  expressing  anything  but  mode," — "I 
maintain,  that  in  figures  there  is  no  dift'erent  meaning  of 
the  word," — it  would  have  been  as  creditable  to  him  intel- 
lectually, and  less  damaging  to  his  cause  logically.  For,  to 
say  that  12  times  12  making  144  proves,  that  "  [jaizzi'^o)  signifies 
to  dip  both  in  fact  and  in  figure,"  is  only  to  adduce  strangely 
irrelevant  proof;  but  to  adduce,  as  proof  that  [ia-Tilm  means 
to  dip,  a  case  in  which  it  is  declared  to  mean  "  to  sink,"  is  to 
bring  not  irrelevant  testimony,  but  simple  and  absolute  dis- 
proof. And  to  adduce  in  proof  of  a  dipping  ("covered  and 
bare  "),  the  ^'sinking  of  souls  eternalbj  in  the  lake  that  burnetii 
with  fire  and  brimstone,"  can  only  make  the  world  stare  at 
the  vagaries  of  a  distraught  intellect. 

Interpretation. 

The  general  interpretation  of  this  passage  must  be  regu- 
lated by  the  capture  of  Babylon,  to  which  it  relates.  And 
particular  words  or  phrases  may  receive  valuable  light  from 
particular  facts  of  that  transaction.  There  is  no  fact  in  the 
case  which  the  divine  record  places  in  such  bold  relief  as 
Belshazzar's  feast;  that  was  the  crowning  "iniquity"  in 
which  Jehovah  was  blasphemed  and  defied.  And  in  that 
feast  its  culmination  presents  to  view  a  royal  figure  gazing 
on  the  wall — "his  countenance  changed,  his  thoughts  troub- 
ling, the  joints  of  his  loins  loosed,  and  his  knees  smiting 


288  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

one  against  another," — his  sins  have  found  liim  out,  and 
"  iniquity  is  baptizing  him"  \vith  dire  alarm. 

The  prophet  is  understood  to  speak  as  a  Babylonian.  And 
whom  could  he  so  aptly  represent  as  the  King  of  the  Baby- 
lonians? And  what  language  could  more  literally  set  forth 
the  condition  of  Belshazzar,  as  he  is  passing  through  his 
baptism,  in  gazing  upon  the  writing  and  hearing  its  inter- 
pretation, than  that  of  the  prophet, — "  My  loins  are  filled 
with  pain;  pangs  have  taken  hold  upon  me;  I  was  dismayed 
at  the  seeing  of  it?"  This  is  the  baptism  of  Iniquity.  "  Con- 
science makes  cowards  of  all."  And  on  "  that  night  in  which, 
he  was  slain,"  conscience,  aroused  by  the  Spirit  of  that  God 
against  whom  "  he  had  lifted  up  himself,"  causeth  his  in- 
iquities to  take  hold  upon  him,  and  he  is  baptized  with  un- 
utterable terror.  To  introduce  here  a  dipping,  or  sinkiug 
in  deep  waters,  is  impertinent  bathos. 

As  the  Septuagint  differs  wholly  [ad  verbum,  yet  not  ad 
sensum)  from  the  Hebrew,  it  gives  fit  occasion  to  point  out 
the  unreliability  of  Dr.  Carson's  principle  in  interpreting 
the  language  of  the  Septuagint  used  in  connection  with  the 
baptism  of  Naaman.  He  says,  (p.  315,)  "  That  the  Greek 
word  signifies  dip,  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  this  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  the  original."  The  meaning  of  the  word 
in  the  original  of  the  passage  under  consideration  is  affright, 
and  the  translation  is  ^a-xilm.  Will  Dr.  C.  vindicate  Iiis  rea- 
soning by  saying,  "  That  the  Greek  word'  signifies  affright^ 
is  clear  from  the  fact  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
the  original?"  The  theorists  throw  their  mantle  of  univo- 
calism  over  a  great  many  words  on  which  it  fits  but  queerly ; 
is  this  one  of  them  ? 

Identity  of  meaning  between  original  and  translated  words 
is  a  sandy  principle  for  a  controversialist  to  build  upon. 

While  this  passage  declares  that  dip  and  transient  cover- 
ing have  neither  part  nor  lot  in  it,  it  declares,  as  unmistak- 
ably, that  completeness  of  condition  is  exhaustive  of  its  thought 
to  the  very  last  element. 

Iniquity  baptizes, — i.  e.,  brings  me  into  a  complete  con- 
dition of  "  terror,"  as  shown  by  the  case,  and  the  context. 


KED   SEA   BAPTISM.  289 

Very  similar  in  form  is,  "Potatio  quae  mergit" — "The  drink 
which  merses,"  brings  into  a  complete  condition  "of  di'unk- 
enness."  Neither  "  iniquity"  nor  "wine"'  dips  its  subjects 
into  water,  shallow  or  deep. 

The  true  usage  of /5a-T£'Cw  destroys  the  theory  as  utterly  as 
if  it  were  sunk  eternally  in  that  lake  of  which  Dr.  Carson 
speaks. 


BAPTISM   AND   MIKACLE. 

"We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  a  very  interesting 
group  of  baptisms.  They  are  caused  by,  or  accompanied 
with,  divine  power  miraculously  displayed.  In  no  one  of 
them,  is  there  either  a  "  dipping  "  or  a  "  temporary  cover- 
ing." In  all  of  them  there  is  a  controlling  influence,  eflfect- 
ing  a  complete  change  of  condition,  characterized  by  indef- 
initely prolonged  continuance :  this  latter  feature  being  as 
essential  to  the  conception  of  a  baptism  as  the  former;  while 
modal  action,  as  such,  of  any  kind,  never,  under  any  circum- 
stances, has  anything  to  do  with  effecting  a  baptism.  The 
presence  or  absence  of  any  particular  form  of  action  is,  alike, 
a  matter  of  indifference.  These  baptisms  leave  "  the  theory  " 
a  perfect  caput  moriuum. 


KED  SEA   BAPTISM. 
Exodus  14  :  19,  21,  28,  31. 

"  And  the  angel  of  God,  which  went  before  the  camp  of  Israel, 
removed  and  went  behind  them;  and  the  pillar  of  cloud  went 
from  before  their  face,  and  stood  behind  them. 

"And  Moses  stretched  out  his  hand  over  the  sea;  and  the 
Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back  b}'  a  strong  east  wind  all  that 
night,  and  made  the  sea  dry  land,  and  the  waters  were  divided. 

"And  the  waters  returned  and  covered  the  chariots  and  the 
horsemen  and  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the  sea 
after  them;  there  remained  not  so  much  as  one  of  them. 
19 


290  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

"  And  Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon 
the  Eg3^ptians;  and  the  people  feared  the  Lord  and  believed  the 
Lord  and  his  servant  Moses." 

Interpretation. 

"Deinde  legimus  quia  in  virtute  sua  magna,  et  braehio  suo 
excelso,  populum  suum  de  terra  ^gypti  liberavit,  quando  tra- 
duxit  eum  per  mare  Eubrum,  in  quo  fecit  figura  baptismatis." 

"  Afterward  we  read  that  by  his  great  power  and  his  high 
arm,  he  liberated  his  people  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  when  he 
led  them  through  the  Eed  Sea,  in  which  was  a  figure  of  bap- 
tism."— Ambrose,  i,  867. 

"Deniqueet  ipse  Moyses  dicit  in  cantico:  'Misisti  Spiritum 
suum,  et  aperuit  eos  mare.'  (Exod.  15:  10.)  Advertis  quod  in 
illo  Hebrffiorum  transitu  jam  tunc  sacri  baptismatis  figura  prae- 
cesserit,  in  quo  jEgyptius  interiit,  et  Hebraeus  evasit.  Quid 
enim  aliud  in  hoc  quotidie  sacramento  docemur,  nisi  quia  culpa 
mergitur  et  error  aboletur;  pietas  autem  et  iiinoeentia  tuta  per- 
mansit." 

"  Finally,  even  Moses  himself  says  in  his  song :  '  Thou  didst 
send  forth  thy  Spirit  and  opened  for  them  the  sea.'  (Ex.  15  :  10.) 
Observe  that  in  that  passage  of  the  Hebrews,  even  then,  a  fig- 
ure of  sacred  baptism  went  before,  in  which  the  Egyptian  per- 
ished and  the  Hebrew  escaped.  For  what  else,  in  this  daily 
sacrament  do  we  teach,  except  that  sin  is  drowned  and  error 
destroyed;  while  piety  and  innocence  remain  safe." — Ambrose, 
iii,  393. 

"In  mari  autem  Rubro  figuram  istius  baptismatis  extitisse  ait 
Apostolus,  dicens:  'Quia  patres  nostri  omnes  baptizati  sunt  in 
nubc  ct  in  mari.'  (I  Cor.  10:1,  2.)  Et  subdidit:  ' llooc  autem 
omnia  in  figura  facta  sunt  illis  (v.  6);  illis  in  figura,  sed  nobis  in 
veritate.' " 

"But  the  Apostle  declares  that  a  figure  of  this  baptism  shows 
itself  in  the  Red  Sea,  saying:  'That  all  our  fathers  were  bap- 
tized by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea.'  (I  Cor.  10:1,  2  )  And 
added :  'But  all  these  things  were  done  to  them  in  figure  (v.  6); 
to  them  in  figure,  but  to  us  in  reality.'" — Ambrose,  iii,  423. 

"Tenebat  virgam  Mo3^ses,  et  ducebat  populum  Ilebritorum 
in  node,  in  columua  lucis,  in  die,  in  colunma  nubis.     Columna 


RED    SEA    BAPTISM.  291 

lucis  quid  est,  nisi  Christns  Dominus At  vero  colmnna 

nubis  est  Spiritus  sanctus.  In  mari  erat  popnlus,  et  praiibat 
columna  lucis;  deinde  sequebatui'  columna  nubis,  quasi  umbra- 
tio  Spiritus  Sancti.  Vides  quod  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  et  per 
aquam  typum  baptismatis  demonstraverit." 

"Moses  held  the  rod,  and  led  the  Hebrew  people  by  night, 
with  the  pillar  of  light;  by  day,  with  the  pillar  of  cloud.  Tiie 
jjillar  of  light,  what  is  it,  but  Christ  the  Lord.  .  .  .  But,  indeed, 
the  pillar  of  cloud  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  people  were  in  the 
sea,  and  the  pillar  of  light  went  before;  then  followed  the  pillar 
of  cloud,  the  shadowing,  as  it  were,  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thou 
seest  that  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  the  water,  a  type  of  bap- 
tism may  have  been  exhibited." — iii,  424. 

"  Qui  non  fuisti  memor  indignationis  tuse:  sed  sicut  in  mari 
mersisti  omnes  iniquitates  nostras,  sicut  jEgyptium  plumbum. 
....  Quod  potest  et  ad  baptismum  referri,  quo  vEgyptius  mer- 
gitur,  Hebrseus  resurgit."  .  .  . 

"  Who  hast  not  been  mindful  of  thy  displeasure;  but,  as  in  the 
sea,  thou  hast  drowned  all  our  iniquities,  like  Egyptian  lead. 
....  Which  may  also  be  referred  to  baptism,  whereby  the 
Egyptian  is  drowned  and  the  Hebrew  rises  again." — iii,  1240, 

"  Filii  igitur  Israel,  ut  Pharaonem  et  vEgyptios  evaderent,  per 
medium  sicci  maris  transierunt,  et  aquae  eis  erant  quasi  pro  muro 
a  dextris  et  a  sinistris.  Similiter  et  popuhis  gentium,  ut  diabolum 
omnesque  ejus  satellites  evaderent,  per  aquam  baptismatis  tran- 
sierunt. Et  qui  antea  erant  filii  diaboli,  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu 
Sancto,  qui  per  columnam  ignis  designabatur,  renati  effecti  sunt 
filii  Dei.  Aqua  ergo  maris  filios  Israel  salvavit.  Pharaonem 
vero  cum  omnibus  satellitibus  suis  necavit;  quia  aqua  baptis- 
matis imaginem  Dei  salvat,  peccata  quibus  servierat,  extinguit; 
diabolus  autem  unicuique,  extinguitur,  qui  eum  fideliter  cum 
omnibus  pompis  ejus  abrenuntiat. 

"Aquse  vero  quas  pro  muro  eis  erant,  a  dextris  et  a  sinistris 
fidem  designabant  nostram,  quam  in  baptismati  percipimus,  quas 
murus  est  noster  ex  utraque  parte  defendens  nos  et  ab  invisibili- 
bus  hostibus  et  a  visibilibus." 

"The  children  of  Israel,  therefore,  that  they  might  escape 
Pharaoh  and  the  Eyptians,  passed  through  the  midst  of  the  dry 


292  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

sea,  and  '  the  waters  were  to  them  as  a  wall  on  the  right  hand 
and  on  the  left.'  In  like  manner  the  people  of  the  Gentiles, 
that  they  might  escape  the  devil  and  his  satellites,  have  passed 
through  the  water  of  baptism.  And  they  who,  formerly,  were 
children  of  the  devil,  born  again  by  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
(who  was  signified  by  the  pillar  of  fire,)  are  made  the  sons  of 
Grod.  The  water,  therefore,  of  the  sea  saved  the  children  of 
Israel.  But  it  slew  Pharaoh  with  all  his  servants.  Because  the 
water  of  baptism  saves  the  likeness  of  God  and  destroys  the  sins 
which  it  served ;  but  the  devil  is  destroyed  to  every  one  who 
faithfully  renounces  him  with  all  his  pomps. 

"  But  the  waters  which  were  to  them  as  a  wall  on  the  right 
hand  and  on  the  left,  designate  our  faith  which  we  receive  in 
baptism;  which  is  our  wall,  on  either  side,  defending  us  from 
enemies  invisible  and  visible." — iv,  827. 

'//  dk  SdXaffffY}  y.ai  ij  v£(fi?.rj  Ttpuc;  /j.kv  zo  Ttapuv  eiq  7:{<ttiv  i^r^ys  dca  t^? 
y.arai:X-j^su>q'  -pbq  dk  to  /j.iAAov  wq  Turroc  ttjv  i/ro/ii'^rj'^  '/Ap'-'-'  ^p<>t^r:£ffrj- 
fiacvs. 

"  But  the  sea  and  the  cloud,  at  that  time,  induced  faith  through 
amazement;  but,  as  a  tj-pe,  it  signified,  for  the  future,  the  grace 
that  should  be  after." — Basil  Magnus,  iv,  124. 

To  did  Trjq  5aAaff<nj?  xat  t^t  ve^^Aijt. 

"That  baptism  which  is  by  the  cloud  and  sea." — JoJm  of  Da- 
mascus, 1,  2G1.     Paris,  1712. 

Td  ok  vdaza,  iiztTirevaa-^ra  tw  Xau)  rijv  d<T(fd?.£tav,  ^drj?j)0  to  jSdTZTtfffJLa' 
xai  7r«(7a  dk  ij  or.uhaiq  t^?  drcb  AiyunTioo  auz&y  68ou,  runoq  r^v  Tr^q  iv  tu> 
ISaTZTiffiiaTC  aioTTjpta'z.   .   ,   .   Mmuirr^q  dk,  Tunov  itpspev  too  XpcaTou. 

<'  The  waters,  securing  safety  for  the  people,  signify  baptism. 
....  And  the  whole  material  of  their  journey  from  Egypt  was 
a  typo  of  the  salvation  by  baptism.  .  .  .  But  Moses  himself  was 
a  type  of  Christ." — Didymus  Alex.,  696. 

A   BAPTISM    WITHOUT    USE    OF   THE   WORD. 

The  historical  narrative  funnshed  us  in  Exodus  of  the 
passage  of  the  children  of  Israel  through  the  divided  sea, 
and  of  the  drowning  of  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians  attempt- 
ing to  follow  after  thera,  does  not  furnish  us  with  any  word 


RED   SEA   BAPTISM.  293 

equivalent  to  /?«—£'> ;  nor  does  tlie  Septuagint  use  it  in  its 
version. 

But  that  a  baptism  did  take  place  on  this  occasion,  is  ac- 
cepted by  all  by  reason  of  the  statement  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
in  I  Cor.  10  :  2. 

On  the  form  and  nature  of  this  baptism  there  is  a  wide 
diversity  of  opinion. 

It  will  be  both  interesting  and  instructive,  to  consider  the 
different  notions  of  baptism,  held  by  various  parties,  as  they 
are  brought  into  contact  in  the  attempt  to  resolve  this  his- 
torical transaction  into  a  baptism. 

Three  styles  of  baptism  are  claimants  for  our  favor :  1.  That 
of  the  Theorists;  2.  That  of  the  Patrists;  3.  That  of  the 
Apostle. 

The  nature  of  these  several  claims,  with  their  sustaining 
evidences,  will  be  considered  in  their  order. 

RED   SEA   BAPTISM    OF    THE   THEORISTS. 

"  The  passage  of  the  children  of  Israel  through  the  Red 
Sea  is  figuratively  called  a  baptism  from  its  external  resem- 
blance to  the  ordinance,  and  from  being  appointed  to  serve 
a  like  purpose  as  well  as  to  figure  the  same  thing.  Here 
(I  Cor.  10  :  2)  they  are  said  to  have  been  baptized.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  there  is  in  their  passage 
through  the  sea,  something  that  represents  both  the  external 
form  and  the  purpose  of  Christian  baptism.  It  was  a  real 
immersion — the  sea  stood  on  each  side,  and  the  cloud  covered 
them.  But  it  w^as  not  a  literal  immersion  in  loater,  in  the 
same  way  as  Christian  baptism.  It  is,  therefore,  figuratively 
called  by  the  name  of  the  £!hristian  ordinance,  because  of 
external  similarity,  and  because  of  serving  the  like  purpose 
as  well  as  figuring  the  same  event. 

"  The  going  down  of  the  Israelites  into  the  sea,  their  being 
covered  by  the  cloud,  and  their  issuing  out  on  the  other  side, 
resembled  the  baptism  of  believers,  served  a  like  purpose  as 
attesting  their  faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal  Saviour,  and 
figured  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ  and  Christians 
as  well  as  Christian  baptism.  .  .  .  Surely  there  is  no  strain- 


294  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

ing  to  see  in  tliis  fact  something  that  may  darkl}^  shadow  a 
burial.  .  .  .  The  baptism  of  Pentecost  and  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  Red  Sea  were  dry  baptisms." 

Dr.  Carson  either  writes  very  enigmatically  or  very  self- 
contradictorily.  He  tells  us  that  this  passage  of  the  Israel- 
ites was  "a  real  immersion,"  and,  therefore,  according  to 
his  remarkable  use  of  words,  a  real  dipping ;  and  therefore, 
still  farther,  according  to  his  postulation,  a  bcqytism.  But 
having  created  this  real  (?)  baptism  at  the  demands  of  theory, 
he  very  promptly,  by  reason  of  necessity  in  another  direc- 
tion, disrobes  it  of  the  real  habiliment  and  enrobes  it  in  the 
dress  of  figure.  "  It  is  figuratively  called  a  baptism."  One 
baptism  may  be  typical  of  another  baptism.  But  a  real  bap- 
tism cannot  get  its  name  from  anything  but  its  own  reality. 
If  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  was  a  real  baptism  it  takes 
its  name  from  its  own  inherent  character,  and  not  as  "a 
figure  of  the  Christian  ordinance." 

Dr.  C.  also  writes  with  a  free  and  easy  assumption,  and 
undertakes  to  tell  us  what  is  the  divine  appointment  without 
showing  any  commission  on  which  is  written — "Thus  saith 
the  Lord."  "  It  is  called  a  baptism  from  its  external  resem- 
blance to  the  ordinance,  and  from  being  appointed  to  serve 
a  like  purpose  as  well  as  to  figure  the  same  thing."  The 
writer  is  at  liberty  to  imagine  an  "external  resemblance  to 
the  ordinance  "  and  to  make  out  such  resemblance  as  well 
as  he  can ;  but  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  say,  that  God  has  "ap- 
pointed "  this  Israelitish  passage  "  to  serve  a  like  purpose 
and  to  figure  the  same  thing"  as  Chrivstian  baptism,  without 
putting  his  finger  on  the  record  made  by  higher  authority 
than  his  own. 

But  what  is  the  resemblance  which  he  traces?  This, — 
"the  going  down  of  the  Israelites  into  the  sea,  their  being 
covered  by  the  cloud,  and  their  issuing  out  on  the  other 
side,  resembled  the  baptism  of  believers."  That  is  to  say, 
"  the  going  down"  and  "the  issuing  out"  "resemble" 
the  act  of  dipping  into  water — covered  and  bare — our  old 
friends  of  the  sea-coast  beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules.  The 
faculty  for  tracing  a  resemblance  between  such  things  re- 


RED    SEA    BAPTISM.  295 

minds  us  of  tlie  sea  story  of  one  of  our  distinguished  countrj- 
men  in  which  he  represents  the  commander,  after  looking 
through  his  ghass  at  a  vessel  in  tlie  far-ofi"  distance,  as  saying 
to  an  African  sailor  by  his  side,  that  "he  thought  it  was  a 
church,"  and  "  old  Scip"  promptly  replied,  that  he  thought 
so  too. 

If  Dr.  Carson  would  try  his  fellow-theorists  who  see  with 
him  a  marked  resemblance  to  a  "  dipping,"  by  adding — 
"Now,  I  think  it  is  a  church,"  he  probably  would  hear  them 
respond  with  all  alacrit}' — "And  we  think  so  too!" 

But  what  "purpose  "  is  this  passage  "appointed  to  serve?" 
As  "  attesting  their  faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal  Saviour." 
'Now,  so  far  from  this  passage  being  appointed  to  give  testi- 
mony to  the  faith  which  they  had  in  Moses,  it  was  appointed 
for  the  very  opposite  reason ;  namely,  because  they  had  not 
faith  in  Moses,  and  to  the  end  that  such  faith  might  be  be- 
gotten and  established.  Let  us  take  the  guidance  not  of 
theories  but  of  the  word  of  God.  Standing  on  the  hither 
side  of  the  sea,  Israel,  sore  afraid  and  fall  of  unbelief,  said 
unto  Moses,  "Because  there  w^ere  no  graves  in  Egypt,  hast 
thou  taken  us  away  to  die  in  the  wilderness?  wherefore 
hast  thou  dealt  thus  with  us,  to  carry  us  forth  out  of  Egypt  ? 
Is  not  this  the  word  that  we  did  tell  thee  in  Egypt,  saying, 
Let  us  alone,  that  we  may  serve  the  Egyptians  ?  For  it  had 
been  better  for  us  to  serve  the  Egyptians  than  that  we  should 
die  in  the  wilderness."  (Exod.  14  :  11,  12.)  As  a  result  of 
this  miraculous  passage  and  deliverance  we  are  told,  as  they 
stand  securely  on  the  farther  side,  their  enemies  all  slain, — 
"  And  Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon 
the  Egyptians :  and  the  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  believed 
the  Lord,  and  his  servant  Moses."  (v.  31.)  Thus  the  statement 
of  the  end  for  which  this  baptism  was  appointed, — namely, 
to  show  the  faith  which  they  already  had  in  Moses,  is  in  the 
most  absolute  contradiction  to  Scripture  statement.  "We 
are  told,  most  expressly,  that  before  the  passage  they  had 
no  faith  in  Moses ;  and  we  are  told,  as  expressly,  that  after 
the  passage  they  had  faith  in  him;  and  the  cause  by  which 
unbeUef  was  removed  and  belief  was  established,  was  their 


296  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

"  seeing  the  Egyptians  dead  upon  the  sea-shore,"  and  "  the 
great  work  which  the  Lord  had  done." 

Now,  unless  the  theory  will  openly  set  aside  the  word  of 
God,  this  "  appointment  to  show,  by  their  baptism,  their 
faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal  saviour"  is  disposed  of. 

But  we  are  farther  told, that  this  baptism  is  appointed  "to 
figure  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ  and  Christians." 
That  is  to  say;  the  march  of  two  million  men,  women  and 
children,  with  flocks  and  herds  innumerable,  through  the  di- 
vided sea,  "figures  the  burial  of  Christ  and  Christians,"  while 
the  landing  on  the  farther  side  amid  bleating  sheep  and  low- 
ing oxen  "figures  the  resurrection."  To  oppose  all  this  I 
confess  myself  unable  to  put  my  finger  upon  any  ipsissima 
verba  of  Scripture.  Revelation  is  designed  to  correct  error 
and.  to  establish  truth.  But  it  does  not  occupy  itself  with 
the  empty  fantasies  or  grotesque  eccentricities  of  the  human 
intellect.  All  I  can  say  is,  that  this  resurrection  of  Israel 
from  the  Red  Sea  burial,  richly  laden  with  all  the  spoils  of 
Egypt,  does  not  bear  a  very  striking  "resemblance"  to  the 
Scripture,  which  says,  "We  brought  nothing  into  this  world, 
and  it  is  certain  that  we  can  carry  nothing  out." 

So  much  for  the  name,  and  the  resemblance,  and  the  pur- 
pose, and  the  figure  of  this  Red  Sea  baptism  according  to 
the  theory. 

Let  us,  now,  look  at  it  in  some  other  points  of  view. 

1.  How  is  this  baptistery  constructed?  What  is  the  depth 
of  that  burial-place  "  down"  into  which  these  walk?  Facts 
say,  that  the  bottom  of  the  sea  was  but  little  lower  than  the 
shore ;  not  more  than  would  allow  a  company  on  horseback 
to  ride  (as  has  been  done)  a  considerable  distance  into  the 
water.  The  "going  down"  into  this  abyss,  therefore,  fur- 
nished but  a  shallow  grave.  But  the  lofi>/  water-walls  may 
make  up  for  the  shallowness  of  the  sea,  and  by  inclosing 
and  outtopping  constitute  an  immersion  for  these  millions 
with  their  flocks  and  herds.  How  lofty  these  water-walls 
were  the  Scripture  does  not  say.  There  is  no  good  reason 
to  believe  that  they  were  any  higher  than  the  natural  depth 
of  the  sea.     There  is  good  reason  for  believing  that  they 


RED   SEA   BAPTISM.  297 

were  not  so  high  as  the  natural  depth  of  the  sea.  The 
waters  were  divided  hy  the  blowing  of  the  wind.  If  a 
miracle  did  not  intervene  to  prevent  it,  the  excess  of  waters 
would  flow  away,  as  they  were  displaced  by  the  wind,  and 
not  become  piled  up  in  a  heap.  We  are  told  that  a  mir- 
acle did  arrest  the  down-flowing  waters  of  the  Jordan. 
"We  are  not  told  of  any  such  miracle  at  the  Red  Sea.  We 
have  no  right  to  make  miracles  for  ourselves.  The  most, 
then,  tliat  we  are  justified  in  affirming  as  to  the  height  of 
these  water-walls  is  the  natural  depth  of  the  sea.  But  at 
what  distance  do  these  walls  stand  from  each  other  ?  We 
are  not  told  that  any  miracle  was  wrought  to  help  these 
Israelites  as  to  their  speed.  We  must,  therefore,  allow 
enough  of  space  between  these  walls  for  the  ordinary  march 
of  two  million  men,  women,  and  children,  incumbered  with 
flocks  and  herds,  and  tents  and  household  goods.  I^ow, 
within  a  very  limited  space  it  would  be  impossible,  a  few 
abreast,  to  cross  this  sea  within  a  night.  These  millions, 
with  flocks  and  herds,  &c.,  &c.,  could  not  be  put  into  march- 
ing condition  with  a  less  front  than  one  mile,  and  make  the 
passage.  They  would,  then,  extend  back  for  five  miles.  It 
is  more  probable  that  these  water-walls  were  five  miles  dis- 
tant from  each  other  than  that  they  were  only  half  a  mile 
distant.  But  whether  one  mile  or  five  apart,  what  show, 
for  the  immersion  of  millions,  would  water-walls  twenty 
feet,  more  or  less,  high  make  ? 

,  But  if  the  sea  be  shallow  and  the  walls  be  low  and  afar, 
may  not  the  baptistery  be  eftectively  completed  by  its  cloud- 
roof?  Is  there  not,  at  least,  herein  that  vital  element  to  an 
immersion — a  covering?  Dr.  Carson  evidently  thinks  so, 
and  insists  upon  it  with  that  positiveness  and  tenacity  which 
might  be  expected  from  one  who  did  not  regard  the  Angel 
Gabriel  as  his  peer  on  tliis  matter  of  dipping.  What  evi- 
dence does  he  bring  to  show  that  a  cloud-roof  rested  on  these 
water-walls  during  the  passage  of  Israel  making  an  immer- 
sion baptistery?  Why  he  points  to  two  prepositions  {^^^^ 
and  ^v)  used  by  Paul,  without  showing  that  they  meet  to- 
gether on  this  occasion,  and  without  any  such  statement 


298  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

by  the  Apostle.  And  against  what  proof  to  the  contrary  is 
this  adduced?  Why  against  the  statement  by  Moses,  aa 
explicit  as  language  is  capable  of,  that  there  was  no  cloud 
covering  Israel  during  their  passage.  This  is  his  statement : 
"  And  the  angel  of  God,  which  went  before  the  camp  of 
Israel,  removed  and  went  behind  them;  and  the  pillar  of  the 
cloud  went  from  before  their  face  and  stood  behind  them." 
(Ex.  14  :  19.)  This  was  before  the  passage  began.  "  And  it 
(the  pillar  of  cloud)  came  between  the  camp  of  the  Egyptians 
and  the  camp  of  Israel;  and  it  was  a  cloud  and  darkness  to 
them ;  but  it  gave  light  by  night  to  these :  so  that  the  one 
came  not  near  the  other  all  the  night."  "We  have  here,  1,  A 
definite  position  to  the  cloud.  Not  resting  on  the  water- 
walls  of  the  theoretic  baptistery,  but  between  the  camps  of 
Egypt  and  Israel.  2.  The  time  of  its  continuance  in  that 
position.  It  was  through  the  entire  night, — "so  that  the 
one  came  not  near  the  other  all  the  night."  3.  The  func- 
tions of  the  cloud  through  that  night.  To  invest  with  pre- 
ternatural darkness  the  camp  of  Egypt,  and  to  illumine  the 
passage  of  Israel. 

The  cloud,  then,  was  engaged  in  other  duties,  that  night, 
than  in  a  participation  in  the  dipping — immersion — burial 
— resurrection — march — baptism — of  Israel.  But  will  these 
statements  of  Moses  have  any  influence  with  the  theorists,  to 
induce  them  to  take  down  their  Red  Sea  baptistery  ?  Surely 
not.  Have  they  not  studied  the  prepositions  ?  Do  they  not 
know  the  meaning  of /Ja-n'^w?  Is  it  not  the  easiest  word  in, 
the  Greek  language  to  translate  ?  Does  it  not  always  mean 
dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature? 
Why  should  they,  who  know  so  much,  yield  to  Moses,  who 
was  only  an  eye-witness  and  prime  actor  in  the  scene,  and 
inspired  of  God  to  write  the  record?  "Either  the  persons 
referred  to  were  immersed,  on  the  occasions  mentioned,  or 
the  inspired  icriier  tesiijies  a  falsehood.''  (Carsoji,  p.  397.)  And 
who  dare  mutter  or  peep  after  the  inspired  writer  has  been 

notified  to  utter  the  sliibbolcth,  or  to  be  branded  as  a . 

I  will  take  the  warning,  at  least  so  far  as  to  say  nothing 
more  on  this  point. 


RED   SEA   BAPTISM.  299 

2.  Let  us  lay  objection  aside,  aud  suppose  the  baptistery 
to  be  constructed  after  the  Carson  model.  What  is  it  worth, 
as  to  its  baptizing  power?  Where  is  the  element  into  which 
the  baptism  takes  place  ?  Confessedly  there  is  none.  There 
is  but  empty  space  between  the  walls  and  roof.  It  is  a  mat- 
ter for  admiration  that  this  empty  space  was  not  filled  with 
that  "  east  wind,"  seeing  that  the  wind,  or  the  sound  like 
wind,  was  employed  for  dipping  the  Apostles  at  Pentecost. 
But  somehow  or  other  this  has  been  overlooked;  and  we 
have  an  empty  baptistery  in  which  some  millions  are  to  be 
dipped.  Another  thing  is  lacking.  As  there  is  no  water, 
save  in  the  walls,  there  can  be  no  "figured"  purification. 
And  yet  even  the  theory  admits,  that  this  is  one  of  the  vital 
features  of  Christian  baptism,  which  we  are  told  is  here 
"figured."  In  fact  this  baptistery  assumes  the  exclusive 
character  of  a  huge  sepulchre,  and  that  night-march  of  men, 
women,  and  children,  sheep  and  oxen,  is  a  self-baptizing 
funeral  procession,  working  out  "the  figure"  of  burial  and 
resurrection. 

Well,  such  is  the  baptism.  iN'ow,  may  we  ask  of  the 
theory,  which  is  so  rich  in  Classic  lore,  and  so  tenacious  of 
the  heathen  rights  of  /SaTrrt'^w,  on  what  cases  of  parallel  clas- 
sical usage  they  ground  this  Red  Sea  baptism  ?  My  limited 
knowledge  supplies  no  case  of  heathen  baptism  "  into  empty 
space."  It  seems  to  me  that  a  good  deal  of  peculiar  rhetoric 
will  be  required  to  make  out  the  case,  and,  after  all,  the 
abandonment  of  the  Classic  side  of  §ar^ri%<u^  and  something, 
perhaps,  be  said,  in  an  undertone,  about  "a  religious  use." 
I  am  afraid  that  the  weight  put  on  this  reed  will  be  found 
quite  too  heavy,  and  that,  in  breaking,  it  will  pierce  the 
hand  that  leans  upon  it. 

It  is  something,  however,  to  repay  our  study  of  this  re- 
markable structure,  to  learn,  at  least,  that  its  baptism  into 
nothing,  figuring  a  burial  and  resurrection,  makes  no  spe- 
cial claim  to  the  Classics  for  su})port. 

3.  Seeing,  now,  that  this  structure  is  repudiated  by  inspi- 
ration, so  far  as  to  unroof  it;  and  is  repudiated  by  heathen- 
ism through  her  Classics,  so  far  as  the  "dry"  baptism  is 


300  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

concerned ;  let  ns  see  what  aid  and  comfort  the  theory  itself 
is  ready  to  extend  to  its  offspring. 

(1.)  The  theory  demands  a  baptizer.  The  candidates  for 
baptism  are  a  host,  before  which  the  numbers  of  Pentecost 
dwindle  into  insignificance.  Must  this  be  a  self-baptism — 
prototype,  on  a  magnificent  scale,  of  the  self-baptism  of 
Roger  Williams?  Then,  along  with  purification,  we  elim- 
inate from  the  "resemblances"  the  not  unimportant  feature 
of  a  baptizer. 

(2.)  The  theory  requires,  that  in  self-baptism  /Sarrw  shall 
ofiiciate.  "  The  person  dips  himself;  therefore  it  is  iJa-ro,  to 
dip,  and  not  /SaTrnTw,  to  cause  to  dip."  (Carson,  p.  30.)  But 
here  we  have  some  millions  "dipping"  themselves,  and  it 
is  ftuTZTL^u}^  and  not  /SaTTTM^  that  does  the  work.  What  says 
the  theory  ? 

(3.)  The  theory  requires  a  modal  act — dip,  and  nothing 
but  dip.  But  here  we  have  the  modal  act  tramp,  tramp,  and 
nothing  but  tramp.     What  says  the  theory  ?    All  right? 

(4.)  The  theory  demands  a  momentary  covering  for  its 
dipped  object.  Here  was  one  lasting  from  the  evening  till 
the  morning-watch.     Will  that  answer  for  a  dipping? 

(5.)  The  theory  requires  faith  in  the  candidate  for  bap- 
tism. To  make  these  candidates  suitable  in  their  resem- 
blance, it  fills  them  with  faith  in  Moses,  where  the  Scrip- 
tures show  them  rampant  with  unbelief. 

(6.)  The  theory  repudiates  infant  baptism.  And  yet  in 
this  very  remarkable  baptism,  it  exhibits  the  most  magnifi- 
cent spectacle  of  infant  baptism  that  the  rolling  ages  have 
ever  witnessed. 

Our  ear  has  grown  familiar  with  the  information  (fur- 
nished by  the  theory,  not  the  Scriptures),  that  there  were 
no  infant  children  in  the  family  of  the  Jailor,  or  of  Lydia, 
or  of  Stephanas,  or  of  any  other  baptized  family  of  the  New 
Testament;  but  were  there  no  infant  children  among  all  the 
families  of  Israel?  Were  these  infant  children  taken  from 
their  parents'  arms,  and  carried  over  outside  the  water- walls, 
and  unshadowed  by  the  cloud-roof?  or,  was  their  bai)tisni 
put  down  with  that  of  the  sheep  and  the  oxen,  as  of  nothing 


INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   RED   SEA   BAPTISM.  301 

worth,  lest  it  should  be  supposed  to  he  one  of  the  "resem- 
blances to  the  Christian  ordinance  ?" 

Unless  the  theory  is  prepared  to  take  a  baptism  without  a 
baptizer;  unless  it  is  willing  to  confess  error  in  the  distinc- 
tion made  between  /3a-rw  and  [ianzi^io-^  unless  it  is  prepared 
to  set  aside  the  modal  act  of  dipping;  unless  it  is  prepared 
to  part  with  that  momentary  covering,  with  which  dip  only 
can  furnish  it;  unless  it  is  ready  to  set  aside  its  watchword, 
"faith  first,  baptism  afterward ;"  and,  finally,  unless  it  is  pre- 
pared to  recognize  the  baptism  of  little  children;  it  must 
reconstruct  its  Red  Sea  baptistery,  and  repudiate  its  bap- 
tism by  nobody  into  nothing. 

There  is,  no  doubt,  surprising  originality  in  the  concep- 
tion of  this  baptism;  otherwise  some  mind,  in  the  course  of 
the  three  thousand  years  which  elapsed  before  this  theory 
was  born,  would  have  caught  some  glimpse  of  it.  But  the 
most  brilliant  originality  can  hardly  survive  repudiation  by 
inspired  writers,  repudiation  by  classic  writers,  and  repudia- 
tion, or  suicidal  acceptance,  by — itself. 

Such  seems  to  be  the  present  aspect  of  this  "dry  baptism" 
in  the  sea. 

But  Dr.  Carson  asks,  more  than  once,  "If  this  is  not  the 
baptism,  then,  what  is?"  Certainly  not  an  unreasonable 
question.  We  will  approach  its  solution  by  first  stating  what 
was  the  Patristic  notion  of  this  baptism.  It  will  be  found 
"  another  kind  "  of  baptism  from  that  just  expounded. 


PATRISTIC   INTERPEETATION  OF  THE   PvED  SEA   BAPTISM. 
AMBROSE. 

First  Extract. — In  the  first  extract  from  Ambrose,  we  are 
told  that  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  land  of  Egypt, 
by  means  of  the  passage  provided  for  them  through  the  Red 
Sea,  was  a  figure  of  baptism.  The  baptism  was  the  deliver- 
ance; the  passage  of  the  sea  was  the  means  whereby  it  was 
accomplished. 


302  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Second  Extract. — In  the  second  extract  there  is  a  partial 
development  of  the  figure  as  he  understands  it.  It  is  this: 
"The  Egyptian  perishes  and  the  Hebrew  escapes."  The 
application  of  these  historical  facts  to  Christian  baptism,  he 
makes  thus:  "  We  teach  in  this  sacrament  that  sin  is  drowned 
and  error  is  destroyed :  but  piety  and  innocence  remain." 
Ambrose  considered  the  drowning  of  the  Egyptians  to  be  as 
vital  a  constituent  in  the  Red  Sea  baptism  as  the  escape  of 
the  Hebrews.  Both  had  an  equally  vital  bearing  on  Chris- 
tian baptism  as  he  understood  it.     Kot  so  the  theorists. 

Third  Extract. — It  is  only  necessary,  in  this  extract,  to  call 
attention  to  the  use  of  in  as  translating  iv,  and  our  transla- 
tion of  both  in  an  instrumental  and  not  local  sense.  Some 
justifying  reasons  for  this  have  already  been  assigned;  more 
will  be  given  hereafter. 

Fourth  Extract. — Here  in  makes  imperative  demand,  by 
the  exigency  of  the  passage,  for  instrumental  power.  "In 
nocte,"  and  "in  die,"  may  be  translated  '■'■in  the  night" — 
"m  the  day;"  yet  not  so  well  as  through  the  night,  during  the 
night,  nightly,  bg  night,  kc.  But  "in  columna  lucis" — "in 
columna  nubis  "  cannot  be  translated,  "  in  a  pillar  of  light" — 
"m  a  pillar  of  cloud."  Neither  Moses  nor  the  people  were 
in  the  pillar  of  lire,  or  cloud,  as  a  fact.  But  Moses  did,  in 
fact,  lead  the  people  bg  the  fiery  and  cloudy  pillar  under 
divine  direction.  We  must,  then,  allow  Ambrose  to  state 
this  fact  though  he  use  the  preposition  "in"  to  do  it.  He 
farther  explains  the  figure  in  this  baptism  by  interpreting 
"the  pillar  of  light"  as  Christ  the  Lord;  "the  pillar  of 
cloud"  as  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  the  water  as  the  element 
used  in  Christian  baptism.  He  does  not  construct  a  bap- 
tistery with  water-walls  and  cloud-roof. 

Fifth  Extract. — Sins  pardoned  are  like  Egyptian  lead, 
drowned  in  the  sea.  The  Egyptian  is  drowned;  the  Hebrew 
rises,  like  the  axe  out  of  Jordan. 

Sixth  Extract. — The  special  value  of  this  extract  is  the 
clear  exhibition  which  it  makes  of  the  passage  through  the 
sea  as  an  agency  by  which  something  is  to  be  efiectcd,  and 
not  as  an  end  in  which  soniL'thing  terminates.     This  is  the 


BAPTISM    INTO    MOSES.  303 

key  which  unlocks  the  Patristic  idea  of  baptism.  "Without 
it  neither  their  conception  nor  their  practice  can  be  worthily 
understood. 

Ambrose  tells  us,  "The  children  of  Israel,  that  they  inight 
escape  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyj)tians,  passed  through  the  midst 
of  the  dry  sea."  Language  could  not  be  more  explicit  to 
teach  that  this  dry  passage  was  an  agency  employed  for  an 
end,  which  end  was  "escape  from  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyp- 
tians." The  nail  thus  driven  home  is  clinched  by  the  state- 
ment, that  those  persons  desirous  of  escaping  "  the  devil  and 
his  satellites  "  employ  Christian  baptism  as  a  means  to  this 
end.  And  herein  is  the  resemblance  between  the  Red  Sea 
baptism  and  its  Patristically  understood  antitype.  Christian 
baptism.  The  water  of  the  sea  saved  the  Hebrews  by  giving 
them  a  dry  passage;  it  slew  Pharaoh  and  his  servants  by 
flowing  over  them.  Here  is  agencj'  of  the  most  active  and 
efficient  character.  So,  "  the  water  of  baptism  saves  the 
image  of  God  and  destroys  the  sins  which  it  served."  Again, 
agency  and  nothing  but  agency. 

Ambrose  adds  another  explanation  of  the  figure.  "The 
w^ater-walls  designate  our  faith,  which  we  receive  in  bap- 
tism." This  Patrist  difters  from  the  theorists  in  their  idea 
that  the  Israelites  had  faith  in  Moses  before  their  baptism. 
He  makes  faith  a  consequence  of  baptism.  He  is  right,  and 
they  are  wrong,  so  far  as  this  Israelitish  baptism  is  con- 
cerned. 

The  understanding  of  Ambrose  as  to  the  Red  Sea  baptism 
is  too  clear  to  be  mistaken.  He  regards  the  passage  through 
"the  dry  sea"  as  the  means  by  which  Israel  was  delivered; 
which  deliverance  was  consummated  by  the  reflow  of  the 
waters  and  consequent  destruction  of  the  Egyptians. 

Ambrose  does  not  fall  into  the  sad  blunder,  of  mistaking  an 
agency  used  to  eflfect  a  baptism  for  the  element  within  which 
the  baptism  takes  place;  nor  yet,  the  equal  blunder,  of  at- 
tempting to  trace  a  resemblance  between  one  agency  and 
another  agency;  or  between  the  agency  and  the  element  of 
a  baptism.     These  patent  errors  belong  to  the  theory. 

Ambrose  knew  perfectly  well,  that  "whatever  is  capable 


804  JUDAIC   BAPTISxM. 

of  exercising  a  controlling  influence  over  its  object,  thor- 
oughly changing  its  condition,"  is  capable  of  baptizing  that 
object.  AVhen,  therefore,  he  is  told,  that  the  Israelites  are 
brought  out  of  a  condition  of  deadly  peril,  into  a  condition 
of  absolute  safety,  by  means  of  a  miraculous  passage  through 
the  sea,  he  does  not  take  a  line  to  measure  the  depth  of  the 
bed  of  the  sea,  or  the  height  of  the  water-walls,  or  the  extent 
of  the  cloud-roof,  to  find  out  a  sepulchre  for  the  immersion. 
Men  who  do  this  have  lost  their  heads.  They  call  midnight 
noon ;  and  in  proof  of  it  kindle  their  rushlight  and  cry — 
"See,  the  sun!" 

It  is  the  same  error  which  continually  crops  out  in  the 
interpretation  of  Classic  baptisms  to  the  violation  of  all 
rhetoric  and  common  sense.  It  is  the  same  error  as  that  of 
the  lake-frog  dipping  of  Gale,  and  of  the  boxer  dipped  into 
his  bloody  nose  by  Carson.  It  is  the  dislocation  of  the 
agency  in  baptism,  and  making  it  fulfil  the  oflace  of  a  re- 
ceiving element. 

"Whatever  misconception  there  may  be  in  Ambrose  about 
the  interpretation,  or  application,  of  this  great  baptism,  he 
makes  no  mistake  as  to  the  true  character  and  proper  ele- 
ments of  a  baptism.  He  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the 
Classics. 

BASIL   THE   GREAT. 

The  quotation  from  Basil  exhibits  the  sea  and  the  cloud, 
as  occupying  the  position  of  agency  in  this  baptism.  There 
is  no  debate  here  about  prepositions,  for  there  are  none. 
The  nominative  case  declares  their  character  as  agents. 
Faith,  also,  is  said  to  be  effected  by  them,  and  that  through 
the  miraculous  character  of  their  agency. 

JOHN    OF  DAMASCUS. 

This  quotation  is  taken  from  President  Beecher,  who,  also, 
quotes  from  Hilary  on  I  Cor.  10  :  2, — "  Per  mare  ct  per  nu- 
bem  purificati."  In  both  cases,  (cloud  and  sea,)  the  prepo- 
sition used  by  the  apostle  is  changed  for  another,  more 
distinctively  expressive  of  instrumentality;  while  the  verb 


BAPTISM   INTO   MOSES.  805 

is  changed  for  a  word  expressing,  by  original  use,  the  mean- 
ing which  the  Greek  word  had  secured,  only,  through  appro- 
priation to  religious  rites. 

DIDYMUS    ALEXANDRINUS. 

In  common  with  all  others,  Didymus  makes  "the  waters'* 
the  instrumental  means  of  salvation,  and,  therefore,  signiti.- 
cant  of  Christian  baptism,  which  he  believed  to  be  the  in- 
strument in  saving  the  soul.  That  salvation  by  the  passage 
of  the  sea,  as  an  instrument,  without  regard  to  mode,  is  the 
truth  which  allies  it  to  Christian  baptism,  is  conclusively 
shown  by  the  additional  statement,  that  not  only  this  par- 
ticular transaction,  but  "all,  else,  pertaining  to  their  journey 
from  Egypt  is  a  type  of  salvation  by  baptism." 

There  is  not  a  Patristic  writer  that  hints  at  a  dipping,  or 
covering,  or  immersion,  or  burial,  or  resurrection,  in  this 
Red  Sea  baptism.  With  one  voice  they  term  it  a  baptism 
of  salvation,  in  which  the  cloud  and  sea  were  the  agencies; 
typifying  the  Holy  Spirit  and  water,  the  agencies  in  salva- 
tion, by  Christian  baptism. 

The  conceptions  of  this  baptism,  as  entertained  by  the 
theorists  and  the  Patrists,  differ  from  each  other  ioto  ccelo. 


INSPIEED  INTEKPKETATION  OF  THE  EED  SEA  BAPTISM. 

"Moreover,  brethren, I  would  not  tbat  ye  should  be  ignorant, 
how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea; 

"And  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  by  the  cloud  and  by  the 
sea." 

Kat  -dvrzq  d-z  rdv  MwoaT^v  i,3a7:r{ffavTo  iv  rrj  vt^ihj  /.at  iu  -^  6a).d<T<rq. 

1  Cor.  10 :  2. 
Baptism  into  3Ioses. 

Before  entering  upon  the  interpretatioji  of  the  special 
passage  with  which  we  are  concerned,,  it  will  be  well  to 
glance  at  the  connection  in  which  it  stands. 

The  apostle  says:  1.  All  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud. 
20 


306  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

2.  All  passed  through  the  sea.  3.  All  were  baptized  into 
Moses.  4.  All  ate  the  spiritual  meat.  5.  All  drank  the 
spiritual  drink. 

Here  are  five  distinct  facts  stated  in  which  all  the  Jewish 
fathers  participated.  They  are  all  facts  of  successive  chro- 
nological development,  unless  the  apostle,  after  having  car- 
ried them  through  the  sea  in  the  most  absolute  manner, 
(using  a  double  Scd,  with  noun  and  verb,)  brings  them  back 
again  into  the  sea  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  them. 

The  historical  narrative  says :  1.  They  were  under  the  cloud 
which  passed  over  them  before  they  commenced  their  march. 

2.  They  passed  from  under  the  cloud  to  pass  through  the 
sea;  the  cloud  remaining  behind. 

3.  They  are  now  over  the  sea,  and  being  over  are  "bap- 
tized into  Moses;"  or  the  narrator  has  made  a  chronological 
slip,  and  has  got  to  go  back,  and  tell  us  what  happened  in 
the  sea,  before  they  "passed  through." 

If  the  baptism  was  before  the  "passing  through,"  why  not 
say  so?  If  the  baptism  and  the  passing  through  were  one  and 
the  same  thing,  why  make  distinct  statements  of  them,  in 
precisely  the  same  form  as  of  events  in  the  same  list,  which 
are  distinct  in  character  and  successive  in  development? 

4.  T'he  eating  spiritual  meat  was  subsequent  to  the  pass- 
ing through  the  sea,  and, 

5.  The  drinking  of  the  spiritual  rock  was  after  the  eating 
of  the  spiritual  meat. 

It  will,  I  think,  be  admitted  by  every  one,  that  unless 
there  should  be  a  compelling  necessity  to  place  the  baptism 
before  the  passing  through  the  sea,  it  must  stand,  chrono- 
logically, as  the  apostle  has  placed  it,  in  fact,  subsequent  to 
and,  also,  a  result  of  the  passage  through  the  sea. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  a  particular  consideration  of  this 
deeply  interesting  statement  of  the  Apostle. 

Translation. 

1.  The  translation — "and  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  by 
the  cloud  and  by  the  sea" — presents  all  the  elements  which 
enter  into  a  baptism  of  that  class  to  which  the  theory  says 


BAPTISM   INTO   MOSES.  307 

this  baptism  belongs  (physical),  and  which  must  appear  in 
any  formally-stated  figurative  baptism,  based  on  this  class 
of  baptisms.  We  have:  (1.)  The  object— "  all  Israel"  (2.) 
The  agency — "  cloud  and  sea."  (3.)  The  element  (by  ver- 
bal suggestion) — "into  Moses." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  translation  of  the  theory  gives  us 
neither  the  agency,  nor  the  element;  but  merely  an  object 
and  a  locality.  To  secure  an  agency  they  have  to  resort  to 
what,  alone,  is  within  their  reach — the  act  of  marchmg.  To 
obtain  an  element,  they  construct  a  building — baptistery  or 
sepulchre — in  the  sea,  and  till  it  with  the  baptizing  element, 
to  wit, — nothing  at  all.  Having  made  this  provision  to  sup- 
plement the  deficiencies  of  the  inspired  narrative,  the  trans- 
lation reads:  "And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea,  into  nothing  at  all,  by  marching." 

This  is  no  caricature.  It  is  no  exposition  of  mine.  It  is 
the  elaborate  exposition  of  the  sternest  and  ablest  friend  of 
the  theory.  If  any  one  should  complain — with  Booth — 
"  this  makes  our  theory  ridiculous;"  it  is  no  fault  of  mine. 

The  translation  which  we  offer  is  not  condemnable  on  the 
score  of  lacking  any  of  the  elementary  features  of  a  baptism. 

2.  The  translation  of  iv. — That  ivith,  or  bg,  may  be  a  true 
translation  of  iv,  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Carson:  "It  maybe  sur- 
prising that,  after  all  that  has  been  said  on  the  subject,  I 
should  still  lay  any  stress  on  the  preposition  iv,  in.  I  may 
be  asked.  Do  you  deny  that  it  may  be  translated  loith?  1 
do  not  deny  this,  3^et  I  am  still  disposed  to  lay  stress  upon 
it."  (p.  121.)  "  The  preposition  is  often  to  be  translated  ivith, 
but  in  the  sense  bg,  grammarians  themselves  acknowledge  it 
to  be  rare."  (p.  330.)  Patristic  writers — Greek  and  Latin — 
use  ^v,  and  in,  with  an  instrumental  sense,  much  more  fre- 
quently than  do  Classic  wn'iters.  The  same  usage  is  exhib- 
ited in  the  Septuagint.  In  ISTehemiah  9  :  12:  "Thou  leddest 
them  in  the  day  bg  a  cloudy  pillar;  and  in  the  night  bg  a 
pillar  of  fire."  And  Ps.  78  :  14:  "In  the  daytime,  also,  he 
led  them  ivith  a  cloud,  and  all  the  night  loith  a  light  of  fire." 
And  in  Ps.  77:  20:  "Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a  flock, 
bg  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron."   In  all  these  passages  the 


308  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

agency  of  the  cloud  and  fire,  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  is  indi- 
cated by  ^v. 

3.  Unless  this  translation  he  correct,  and  iv  points  out  the 
agency,  there  is  no  agency.  But  there  can  be  no  baptism 
without  a  baptizing  agenc}-,  therefore  we  are  shut  up  to  this 
translation.  I  may  add,  that  Pliny  uses  the  phrase  "  in  nube," 
when  ivithinness,  as  to  the  cloud,  is  impossible :  ^'■neque  in  nube 
neque  injlatu  cadunt  rores."  Dew  never  falls  within  a  cloud. 
The  influence  of  cloud  and  wind  prevents  the  formation  of 
dew.     "  Dews  do  not  fall  during  a  cloudy  or  windy  night." 

4.  The  translation  accords  with  the  historical  facts.  The 
cloud  and  the  sea  were  agencies,  trulj-  magnificent  agencies, 
employed  in  this  transaction.  The  divided  sea,  furnishing 
its  dry  pathway,  and  the  cloud,  casting  preternatural  dark- 
ness over  the  camp  of  Pharaoh,  while  illuminating  the  night- 
march  of  Israel,  were  the  miraculous  agencies  brought  into 
operation.  The  use  of  miracle,  to  aft'ect  and  to  influence 
men,  is  in  harmony  with  the  steadily  maintained  purpose 
of  God.  To  this  end  miracles  were  used  in  Egypt,  in  the 
wilderness,  throughout  the  Jewish  economy,  during  the  life 
of  the  Eedeemer,  and  in  the  establishment  of  Christianity. 
This  agency,  then,  was  no  strange  thing.  The  influence  of 
these  miracles  on  Israel  could  not,  in  the  nature  bf  things, 
have  its  development  until  their  full  consummation.  And 
this  consummation  neither  did,  nor  could,  take  place  until 
Israel  was  placed,  in  safety,  on  the  farther  side  of  the  sea, 
and  their  enemies  had  been  swallowed  up  in  the  miracu- 
lously returning  waters.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  does  the 
narrative  say  that  this  influence  had  its  development,  eftect- 
ing  an  entire  change  in  the  condition  of  the  Israelitish  mind 
toward  Moses.  That  translation  which  usage  allows,  history 
demands.  "  Cloud  and  sea"  were  not  elements  to  be  dipped 
into.  They  were  agencies  in  which  was  "  the  hiding  of  God's 
power." 

5.  Historical  facts  do  not  allow  the  adverse  translation — 
"m  the  cloud,  in  the  sea."  There  is  no  historical  evidence 
to  show  that  the  millions  of  Israel  were  now,  or  were  at  any 
other  time,  "//i  the  cloud."     There  is  historical  evidence  to 


BAPTISM   INTO   MOSES.  309 

the  contrary.  There  is  no  liistorical  evidence  to  show  that 
Paul  uses  ^v  rfj  eakdaarj^  out  of  its  usual  seuse  including  water, 
but  excludes  water,  and  limits  his  meaning  to  the  bed  of  the 
sea.  There  is  historical  evidence  to  show  that  such  cannot 
be  his  meaning. 

Dr.  Carson  says :  "  He  will  make  the  word  [(iantiZoj)  find 
him  water  in  the  desert."  Here  he  has  the  word,  and  yet 
he  cannot  find,  with  it,  a  drop  of  water  "in  the  sea." 

These  are  some  of  the  considerations  which  vindicate  the 
translation,  so  far  as  this  preposition  {iv)  is  concerned. 

3,  The  translation  of  d^. — (1.)  The  translation  "into,"  is  re- 
quired in  order  to  indicate  the  element  (verbally  suggested) 
of  the  baptism.  There  are  classes  of  baptism  in  which  the 
mersing  element  is  wholly  lost.  It  has  no  more  place  in 
imagination  than  it  has  in  fact.  But  in  all  such  cases  an 
element  may  be  verbally  introduced.  In  some  cases  this  is 
very  important  in  order  to  give  precision  to  a  statement 
which,  otherwise,  would  be  vague  and  uncertain.  In  other 
cases  it  is  imperative,  as  without  it  we  could  never  be  cer- 
tain of  the  nature  of  the  baptism  designed.  If  I  am  told 
that  a  man  is  "  baptized  by  wine,"  I  may  conclude  with  much 
confidence,  that  the  meaning  is,  he  was  made  drunk;  but  of 
this  I  cannot  be  confident;  for,  whild  this  is  the  natural  and 
ordinary  influence  of  wine,  it  also  induces  a  condition  of 
stupor,  shame,  poverty,  &c.  If  the  statement  is,  "  baptized 
by  wine  into  drunkenness,'^  doubt  is  at  an  end.  The  verbal 
suggestion  of  the  element,  has  settled  the  matter.  If  I  do 
not  know  the  nature  of  wine,  then  to  be  told  that  a  man  is 
"baptized  by  wine,'''  conveys  to  me  no  definite  information 
whatever,  i^ow,  the  influence  of  a  miracle  is  not  limited, 
by  its  nature,  to  one  result;  neither  are  miracles  always 
wrought  for  the  accomplishment  of  one  uniform  result. 
"Baptism  by  miracle,"  therefore,  is  not  specific  in  its  in- 
formation. AVhat  baptism  would  be  effected  by  the  mir- 
acles at  the  Red  Sea,  could  never  be  known,  definitely,  ex- 
cept by  specific  statement.  The  Egyptians  were  baptized 
into  terror,  by  the  divine  intervention  troubling  their  chariots, 
and  witnessing  the  inrolling  of  the  waters,  before  they  were 


310  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

baptized  into  the  flood.  We  never  could  have  known  that 
these  miracles  would  issue  in  the  baptism  of  Israel  "into 
Moses,"  unless  we  had  been  told  so;  for  he  had  wrought 
many  miracles  before  without  any  such  result.  But  we  do 
know  that  such  was  the  result,  now,  because  inspiration  so 
informs  us,  in  terms  than  which  language  has  none  more 
explicit.     "All  were  baptized  into  Moses." 

(2.)  Usage  demands  iliis  translation. — There  is  not  an  instance 
in  Classic  literature  in  which  dq  stands  thus  related  to  i^aTzriXu), 
but  that  the  friends  of  the  theory  translate  by,  hdo.  We  have 
made  no  objection  to  this.  But  we  insist,  that  what  was  right 
then,  cannot  be  wrong  now.     "Into"  must  remain  into. 

When  Joseph  us  wrote,  (^s^aTznaiiivov  dq  amiair^aia-j  xai  u-vov — 

it  was  a  "baptism  into  stupor  and  sleep."  (Conant.)  The 
translation  must  stand,  though  "stupor  and  sleep"  give 
place  to  "Moses."  When  the  Christian  Patrist,  Clemens 
Alex.,  wrote,  ek  rropveiav  ^ar.ri'^auffi — the  translation  found  a 
baptism  "mto  fornication."  (Conant.)  When  the  inspired 
Apostle  writes,  dq  t6v  MwaT^v  iiSanriffw^ro, — I  know  of  nothing 
in  inspiration  to  change  the  force  of  a  preposition,  and  there- 
fore still  read,  "  they  were  baptized  into  Moses." 

(3.)  The  translation,  "  unto  Moses,"  is  not  satisfactory.  It 
may  be  so  translated  very  frequently  in  other  relations.  It 
may  be  so  interpreted,  here,  as  to  give  the  true  sense.  But 
it  does  not  present  the  form  of  the  original,  nor  lead  to  that 
method  of  interpretation  which  the  form  suggests.  It  is  also 
objectionable,  because  in  phrases  of  the  same  grammatical 
form,  the  subject-matter  being  changed,  the  same  translation 
would  not  answer.  If  Eupolis  must  be  baptized  into  the  sea, 
and  not  unto  the  sea,  that  he  may  be  brought  under  its  iu- 
fluence — drowned; — then  Israel  must  be  baptized  into  Moses, 
and  not  unto  Moses,  that  they  may  be  brought  thoroughly 
under  his  influence — subject  to  his  headship. 

(4.)  To  these  considerations  may  be  added  the  very  pointed 
testimony  of  some  of  the  Patrists. 

Origcn,  ii,  330,  says:  "He  calls  this  baptism  into  Moses" — 
ba[>tismum  hoc  nominat  in  Moyse — "accomplished  by  the 
cloud  and  by  the  sea,  that  thou,  also,  who  art  baptized  into 


INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   RED   SEA   BAPTISM.  311 

Christ,  bj  the  water  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  mayest  know 
that  the  Egyptians  are  following  after  thee."  .  .  . 

Basil  31.,  iii,  428 :  "  That  Israel  was  baptized  into  Moses,  by 
the  cloud  and  by  the  sea,  exhibiting  types  and  delineating 
for  thee  the  truth  about  to  be  revealed  in  these  last  times; 
but  thou  dost  shun  baptism,  not  typified  by  the  sea,  but  per- 
fected by  the  truth;  not  by  the  cloud,  but  by  the  Spirit;  7iot 
into  Moses,  a  fellow-servant,  but  into  Christ,  the  Creator — 

ovx  £l<;  Slwuffrjv  rbv  6fi68(iulov,  aXX"  eiq  Xpctrrdv  tov  Tzotyjaai/ra." 

Basil  M.,  iv,  121-5,  writing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  states  an  ob- 
jection against  the  equality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  thus:  Objector,  "But  although  we  are  baptized 
into  him — ^aizn'^uij.tia  eiq  auro — it  is  not  proper  that,  on  that 
account,  he  be  ranked  with  God;  for  some  were  baptized 

into    Moses  :   e^?  tuv  Mwoffy^v  nveq  ijSanTcffey^ffav."     He   concludes, 

after  argument,  "So,  although  any  one  be  baptized  into 
Moses — rte;  £;?  MwOffrjv  qSaTzrifferj — the  grace  which  is  from  the 
Spirit  at  baptism,  is  not  small."  "  It  is  customary  for  the 
Scriptures  to  speak  of  Moses  as  the  Law — thus :  '  they  have 
Moses  and  the  prophets.'  Therefore  speaking  of  the  legal 
baptism — r6  vo/juxdv  (idnnaiia — he  says :  'They  were  baptized 
into  Moses' — i^aT,riah^ao.v  t'cz  rov  Mujuffy^'^."  " Moses  was  a  type, 
not  of  the  Spirit,  but  of  Christ." 

IsTo  one  I  think  can  doubt  but  that  these  learned  Grecians 
believed  in  a  baptism  into  Moses.  While  there  is  no  evidence 
that  they  had  ever  heard  of  a  baptism  into  emfty  space,  there 
is  conclusive  testimony  that  they  were  familiar  with  the  bap- 
tism of  Israel  into  their  great  Leader. 

Interpretation. 

But  what  interpretation  is  to  be  given  to  the  phrase  "bap- 
tized into  Moses?" 

It  is  obvious  that  the  basis  of  the  interpretation  must  be 
found  in  the  literal  use  of  similar  phraseology.  In  turning 
to  the  literal  use  of  (ianriZto  we  find  several  classes  of  baptisms 
presenting  material  diversities. 

1.  There  are  baptisms  of  influence  without  intusposition 
whether  of  fact,  or  imagination,  or  verbal  suggestion.     The 


312  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

phraseology  before  us  cannot  be  grounded  in  baptisms  of 
this  class,  because  there  is  nothing  to  meet  its  verbal  form. 

2.  Other  baptisms  are  of  intusposition  merely;  they  have 
no  attendant  influence.  This  cannot  be  the  baptism  we 
wish,  for  we  must  have  influence. 

3.  Another  class  of  baptisms  have  both  intusposition  and 
influence;  but  the  influence  is  an  accident,  unsought,  un- 
cared  for.  We  will  not  take  such  a  baptism  if  we  can  find 
a  better. 

4.  A  better  is  found  in  yet  another  class  of  baptisms  in 
which  intusposition  is  sought,  solely  for  the  sake  of  the  in- 
fluence thence  resulting.  For  example,  "  They  baptize  into 
the  ivater  a  pole  covered  with  pitch," /or  the  sake  of  catching 
floating  particles  of  gold.  "  Baptizing  them  into  the  lake,'' 
for  the  purpose  of  drowning  them.  "Baptize  it  into  milk," 
for  the  sake  of  its  emollient  influence.  "Baptizing  it  into 
blood,"  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  means  wherewith  to 
write.  (See  Classic  Baptism,  p.  266.)  In  all  these  cases  intus- 
position is  for  the  sake,  and  solely  for  the  sake  of  influence. 
This  influence  in  every  case  is  diverse  in  its  nature,  but  com- 
plete in  its  measure.  The  method  of  securing  that  influence 
is  an  accident  due  to  the  nature  of  the  case.  In  applying 
these  baptisms  to  that  which  is  in  hand,  we  reject,  of  course, 
those  things  in  which  they  diflfer;  as  respects  1.  The  agencies 
in  the  baptism.  2.  The  forms  of  action  introducing  into 
the  baptism.  3.  The  objects  to  be  baptized.  4.  The  ele- 
ments within  which  the  baptism  takes  place.  5.  The  nature 
of  the  influence  sought. 

In  none  of  these  particulars  do  these  baptisms  agree. 
Hence  we  see,  how  patent  is  the  error  which  makes  baptism 
to  consist  in  the  performance  of  a  form  of  action;  and,  also, 
the  error,  in  interpreting  figurative  baptisms,  by  converting 
the  source  of  influence  into  a  pool  of  simple  water.  AVliy 
not  convert  it  into  water  impregnated  with  golden  jiarticlcs, 
or  into  a  vessel  fllled  with  milk,  or  into  a  pool  of  blood? 
The  fact  that  intusposition  in  simple  water,  droicns — in  gold 
water,  f/ihls — in  milk,  mokes  emollient — in  blood,  makes  red — 
is  proof  that  figurative  baptisms  cannot  be  interpreted  by 


INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   RED   SEA   BAPTISM.  813 

making  any  of  these  things  the  menstrnnm  within  Avliich  its 
object  is  to  be  placed.  All  the  peculiarities  of  any  medium 
must  be  eliminated.  The  conception  must  be  made  abstract. 
"We  thus  secure  the  general  idea  of  influence  from  intuspo- 
sition.  When,  with  this  idea,  we  confront  the  phrase  e;'? 
McuuffT^v^  we  at  once  recognize  the  purpose  to  express  the 
thought  of  such  influence  (as  to  its  measure),  as  results  from 
the  intusposition  of  an  object  within  an  enveloping  medium. 
It  does  not  mean  that  Moses  is  such  a  medium  in  fact.  It 
does  not  mean  that  we  shall  imagine  ^Moses  to  be  such  a 
medium;  that  we  shall  imagine  two  million  men  to  be  put 
within  him,  or  within  a  pool  of  water,  milk,  or  blood,  repre- 
senting him,  for  the  writer  is  not  a  lunatic.  But  it  means, 
by  the  verb  and  the  preposition,  to  suggest  an  idea  inherent 
iu  these  words  in  certain  relations,  and  apply  that  idea  to 
tbe  peculiarities  of  the  case  with  which  it  is  here  connected. 
In  doing  this  we  use  the  thought  of  intusposition  merely  to 
reach  that  of  influence,  and  having  done  so,  throw  it  aside 
like  a  scaffolding,  as  having  served  its  purpose. 

These  suggestive  words  having  fulfilled  their  function,  we 
enter  upon  ours  as  interpreters  of  the  Apostle,  and  say:  He 
declares,  that  Israel  was  made  subject  to  the  controlling  in- 
fluence of  Moses,  by  means  of  their  miraculous  deliverance ; 
even  as  an  object  is  made  subject  to  the  controlling  influence 
of  any  medium  by  which  it  is  enveloped  through  an  indefi- 
nitely prolonged  period  of  time.  The  resemblance  is  in  the 
measure  of  influence,  not  in  the  mode  of  accomplishment. 

This  interpretation  is  precisely  what  the  exigency  of  the 
case  demands.  Moses  had  just  been  appointed,  as  he  claimed, 
by  divine  authority  to  be  head  of  an  unorganized  nation. 
Their  position  was  one  of  the  greatest  possible  embarrass- 
ment and  peril.  They  had  no  established  confidence  in  him. 
It  was  essential  that  they  should  have  the  firmest  conviction 
of  his  divine  mission.  Under  him  they  were  to  be  organized 
into  a  nation.  Through  him  they  were  to  receive  a  code  of 
stringent  laws.  By  him  they  were  to  be  introduced  into  a 
highly  developed  religious  system.  With  him  they  were  to 
encounter  a  long  series  of  privations,  perils,  marches,  and 


314  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

battles.  As  no  other  people  in  this,  world,  before  or  since, 
it  was  necessary  that  Israel  should  have  confidence  in  their 
Moses.  The  infinitely  wise  God  selected  this  juncture  to 
accomplish  this  end,  so  essential  to  all  his  purposes  in  the 
future.  None  could  be  more  thoroughly  adapted  to  the 
purpose.  The  liberty  and  life  of  these  millions  are  quiver- 
ing in  the  balances.  In  their  judgment  the  scales  had  already 
gone  down  on  the  side  of  bondage  and  death.  In  their 
anguish  they  cry  to  Jehovah.  In  their  despair  they  upbraid 
their  Leader.  Then,  in  that  hour  when  all  hope  had  fled, 
that  leader's  rod  is  stretched  over  the  sea  and  deliverance 
bursts  upon  them.  The  cloud-witness  to  their  Leader  plants 
itself  between  them  and  their  enemies.  The  dreaded  sea 
opens  a  passage  for  them.  Safe  on  the  farther  side,  (the 
waters  closed,  their  enemies  enclosed  in  them,)  bajHized  into 
31oses,  through  this  divindy  attesting  miraculous  dclicerance  by 
sea  ami  cloud,  voice  and  timbrel  proclaim  Jehovah  to  be  God, 
aiid  Moses  to  be  his  servant! 

"We  are  now  ready  to  answer  Dr.  Carson's  question:  "If 
it  was  not  a  dry  baptism  into  empty  space,  between  water- 
walls  and  under  cloud-roof,  what  was  the  baptism?''  It  was 
a  baptism  in  which  Jehovah  was  the  baptizer;  the  cloud  and 
the  sea  were  the  conjoint  agency;  Israel's  millions  were  the 
subjects;  and  Moses,  (as  claiming  to  be  the  Legate  of  Je- 
hovah,) is  the  verbal  element.  In  a  word,  this  baptism  de- 
clares that  Israel  was,  hereby,  ynade  subject  to  the  controlling 
influence  of  Moses  in  his  divine  mission. 

In  making  this  declaration  the  apostle  merely  repeats,  in 
other  terms,  the  identical  sentiment  uttered  by  Moses  himself, 
"And  the  people  believed  the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses." 

"Who  would  take  the  "dry  baptism"  of  the  theory,  rather 
than  this  grand  baptism  of  inspiration  ?  Let  others  choose 
as  they  may,  I  will  choose,  with  the  apostle,  the  baptism  of 
the  fleshly  Israel  into  the  type-prophet  Moses,  shadowing 
forth  the  baptism  of  the  spiritual  Israel  into  the  antitype 
Prophet — CniiisT  the  Lord! 

Such  is  the  clear,  rational  and  God-glorifying  baptism  at 
the  lied  Sea  as  interpreted  by  inspiration  through  I'aul. 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   JORDAN.  315 

THE  KIYER  DIVIDED  BY  MIRACLE, 

BAPTISM    BY   THE   JORDAN. 

II  Kings  2  :  8. 

"And  Elijah  took  his  mantle,  and  wrapped  it  together  and 
smote  the  waters,  and  they  were  divided  hither  and  thither,  so 
that  they  two  went  over  on  dry  ground." 

Interpretation. 

.  .  .  'Ev  TUi  ^loptidvq  l^aTZTttrd/jLevoq,  i.7ze\  rijv  di'  uSaro^  Trapado^oripav 
dcdiSaffcv  i3d--t(TfJLa,  wq  TzpuTzapsCi/xeia,  (uvd/iaaev  6  llauXo:;,   .   .   . 

"  But  this,  also,  is  to  be  observed,  that  Elias,  when  about  to 
be  received  up  into  heaven,  having  taken  his  mantle,  and  wrap- 
ped it  together,  he  smote  the  water,  which  divided  hither  and 
thither;  and  they  both  passed  through,  to  wit,  he  and  Elisha; 
for  he  is  made  more  fitted  to  be  taken  up,  liaving  baptized 
himself  by  the  Jordan,  seeing  that  Paul  called,  as  we  have  be- 
fore shown,  a  more  wonderful  passage  through  water,  baptism. 
Through  this  same  Jordan  Elisha  passes  to  receive  the  gift,  by 
Elias,  which  he  desired,  saying:  'Let  a  double  measure  of  thy 
spirit  rest  upon  me.'  And  perhaps,  for  this  reason,  he  received 
doubly  the  spirit  of  Elias,  because  he  twice  passed  through  the 
Jordan,  once  with  Elias  and  a  second  time  when,  having  received 
the  mantle  of  Elias,  he  '  smote  the  water,  and  said.  Where  is  the 
God  of  Elias  ?  And  he  smote  the  waters,  and  they  divided  hither 
and  thither.'  " — Origen,  iv,  280. 

.  .  .  ^ IlXiaq  dvaXafj.j3dv£Tac,  aAA'  6u  '/wpt-^  vdazoq '  TzpaJrov  yap  dta- 
^aivei  Tuv  'lopdd'^rjv,  elza  i-KTzr^Xarii  zuv  uupavuv.   .    .    . 

"If  any  one  desires  to  know  why  grace  is  given  by  means  of 
water  and  not  by  means  of  any  other  of  the  elements,  search- 
ing the  divine  Scriptures  he  will  find  out.  For  water  is  some 
great  thing  and  the  best  of  the  four  visible  elements  of  the 
woi'Id.  Heaven  is  the  dwelling-place  of  angels,  but  the  heavens 
are  of  the  waters.  The  earth  is  the  home  of  men,  but  the 
earth  is  of  the  waters,  and  before  everything,  of  the  things 
which  were  made  during  the  creation  of  the  six  daj^s,  the  Spirit 
of  God  was  upborne  above  the  water.  Water  was  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  and  the  Jordan  was  the  beginning  of  the  Gospels. 


316  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Deliverance  to  Israel  from  Pharaoh  was  by  means  of  ((Jta)  the 
sea,  and  deliverance  of  the  world  from  sin  is  by  means  of  {dcd), 
the  washing  of  water,  by  (^v)  the  word  of  God.  Wherever  there 
was  a  covenant  with  any  persons,  there  was  water.  After  the 
flood  a  covenant  was  made  with  Noah.  A  covenant  was  made 
with  Israel  out  of  Mount  Sinai,  but  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool 
and  hyssop.  Elias  was  taken  up,  but  not  without  water,  for  first 
he  passes  through  {dta;3atvsi)  the  Jordan,  then  rides  by  horses 
to  heaven.  The  high  priest  is  first  washed,  then  sacrifices. 
Aaron  was  first  washed,  then  was  high  priest.  For  how  shall 
he  enter  in  to  pray  for  others,  who  is  not  yet  purified  by  means 
of  ((Jid)  water.  And  the  laver  placed  within  the  tabernacle  was 
a  symbol  of  bai^tism." — Cyril,  433. 

Translaiion. 

The  translation  of  Iv  rJ)  lopdf/yyj  is  made  "^>^  the  Jordan," 
because  the  case  seems  to  demand  it.  1.  The  baptism  was 
effected  by  a  peculiar  influence,  attributed  to  water,  and  not 
by  water,  as  a  simple  fluid.  2.  The  baptism  was  effected  by 
Jordan,  as  a  whole,  and  not  by  any  portion  of  it. 

But  if  the  translation  "?«  the  Jordan,"  be  insisted  upon, 
then,  1.  The  phrase  iv  rw  '/opddvij  does  not,  of  any  necessity, 
involve  a  particle  of  water.  2.  More  than  this :  fia--iZa}  may 
be  conjoined  with  the  phrase  ^i'  rw  lapdfhvj^  and  still  there  be 
no  dipping  into  water,  no  covering  with  water,  and  no  ap- 
plication of  water  to  the  person  in  any  form,  or  in  any  meas- 
ure. 3.  What  is  most  important  of  all,  it  teaches  us,  that 
after  we  have  been  told  Ihat  a  person  has  been  baptized,  and 
after  we  have  been  told  the  place  of  liis  baptism,  and  that 
place  a  river — "m  the  Jordan  " — we  cannot  possibly,  hereby, 
know  the  quo  modo  of  the  baptism.  If  any  theorist  should 
be  told  that  "two  men  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan,"'  and 
asked,  if  he  could  tell  lioiu  it  was  done?  the  answer  would 
be  prompt,  and  in  the  language  of  Carson,  "Certainly  I 
know  how  it  was  done.  They  were  either  dipped  into  the 
water,  or  whoever  says  'they  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan,' 
tells  a  falsehood."  Unfortunately,  however,  for  this  know- 
ing theorist  and  his  teachers,  Elias  and  Elisha  were  both 
"baptized  in  the  Jordan,"  (as  they  insist,)  and  yet  neither 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   JORDAN.  317 

was  "dipped"  into  the  water,  or  even  sprinkled  with  it. 
Classic  Baptism  (pp.  352,  353,-  et  jyassim)  insists  upon  the 
truth,  that  /SaTrn'Cw  is  not  a  self-interpreting  word,  as  to  the 
modus  operaiidi  in  effecting  a  baptism.  And  here  we  have 
that  position  confirmed.  If  Cyril  does  tell  us  that  the  pro- 
phets were  "baptized  in  the  Jordan,"  the  statement  leaves 
us  in  Egyptian  night  as  to  the  mode  of  the  baptism.  If  we 
answer  in  what  mode  they  were  baptized,  and  are  guided 
by  the  Greek  Archbishop  of  Jerusalem,  this  will  be  our  re- 
ply :  "  They  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan  by  walking  along 
its  dry  channel,  within  reach  of  that  purifying  influence 
imparted  to  the  element  water,  (and  not  to  earth,  or  air, 
or  fire,)  at  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  when  'the  Holy 
Spirit  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.'  "  And  this  was 
their  mode  of  baptism.     A  new  style  for  the  theorists. 

It  is  evident  that  by  the  translation  "m  the  Jordan,"  you 
meet  a  local  fact  which  is  to  be  supplemented  by  the  agency 
effecting  the  baptism.  The  translation,  "by  the  Jordan," 
responds  to  the  influential  agency  exerted  by  the  Jordan  in 
accomplishing  the  baptism.  The  first  translation,  if  adopted, 
must  be  supplemented  by  the  last — in  the  Jordan  and  by  the 
Jordan  influence. 

Patristic  Interpretation. 

In  speaking  of  the  translation,  we  have  been  compelled  to 
trespass  somewhat  on  the  interpretation.  The  baptism  being 
that  of  Origen  and  Cyril,  the  interpretation  must  follow  their 
language  and  sentiments.  If  there  be  any  persons  better 
qualified  than  these  Grecians,  to  speak  with  authority  as  to 
the  use  of  a  Greek  word,  or  to  teach  us  the  true  nature  of  a 
baptism,  I  do  not  know  who  they  are. 

ORIGEN. 

Origen  says  that  Elias  was  baptized,  and  that  he  was  bap- 
tized by  passing  through  the  Jordan.  The  question  is,  as 
to  the  nature  of  this  baptism.  Was  it  a  dipping,  or  an  en- 
velopment, or  by  a  controlling  influence  from  whicli  envel- 
opment is  eliminated?    We  must  be  guided  in  our  judgment 


818  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

by  his  language  and  known  sentiments.  From  his  usage  of 
the  word  there  can  be  no  appeal  He  was  a  Greek  of  the 
Greeks.  That  there  was  no  dipping,  in  fact,  is  unquestioned. 
That  there  was  no  actual  envelopment,  is  also  conceded. 
That  there  was  a  change  in  the  condition  of  Elias,  fitting 
him  for  heaven,  is  a  matter  of  express  statement.  That  this 
change  of  condition  was  effected,  instrumentalh',  by  passing 
along  the  dry  channel  of  the  river,  is  also  matter  of  distinct 
statement. 

We  say  that  the  baptism  did  not  consist  in  any  modal 
movement  of  the  body,  nor  in  any  modal  position  occupied 
by  the  body  of  Elias. 

Proof  of  this  is  found:  1.  In  the  fact  that  the  modal  act, 
moving  the  body  of  the  prophet,  was  walking,  and  not  dip- 
ping. 

2.  In  the  fact  that  there  was  no  2W^i<6;position.  Interposi- 
tion there  was,  or  rather  mtermotion.  But  I  have  never 
understood  that  the  one  or  the  other  was  a  baptism. 

3.  No  physical  movement  or  position  will  answer  for  the 
baptism  of  Origen.  I'hese  tilings  icon't  Jit  the  soul  for  heaven. 
But  this  was  the  baptism  which  Elias  received.  The  bap- 
tism, then,  was  one  of  influence,  changing  condition.  Proof 
of  this  is  found  : 

1.  In  the  reference  to  the  parallel  passage  of  the  Israelites 
through  the  divided  sea.  Origen  deduces  no  physical  mer- 
sion  from  this  passage;  but  declares,  that  through  the  influ- 
ence of  the  miracle  providing  this  passage,  under  the  instru- 
mentality of  Moses,  the}'  were  "baptized  into  Moses."  So, 
Elias  was  baptized  through  the  influence  of  this  sacred  stream, 
purifying  him  and  making  him  meet  for  heaven.  The  holy 
character  of  the  Jordan,  and  its  power  over  body  and  soul, 
is  developed  in  the  paragraph  following  the  quotation  under 
consideration.  He  there  argues  against  the  " offence"  which 
might  be  taken  in  consequence  of  its  being  stated  that  the 
Jordan  was  "struck."  That  river  being  a  "type  "  of  Christ, 
"who  is  our  Jordan,"  is  too  sacred  to  be  struck  by  the  pro- 
phet. The  difliculty  is  met  by  a  reference  to  the  smiting  of 
the  rock  in  the  wilderness — "And  that  rock  was  Christ." 


BAPTISM   BY   THE   JORDAN.  319 

He  farther  states  that,  "As  there  is  none  good  but  one,  even 
God  the  Father,  so  there  is  no  river  good,  but  the  Jordan, 
which  is  able  to  cleanse  from  leprosy  him  that  washes  his 
soul,  with  faith,  in  Jesus."  This  stream,  of  such  marvellous 
virtue,  was  able  to  baptize  for  heaven,  him  who  walked  be- 
tween its  waters. 

2.  Farther  evidence  that  this  baptism  was  one  resulting 
from  influence,  changing  the  condition,  is  found  in  the  sug- 
gestion, that  Elisha  received  "a  double  measure"  of  the 
spirit  of  Elias,  by  passing  twice  through  the  Jordan. 


Cyril's  conception  is  the  same  as  that  of  Origen.  It  was 
effected  by  water,  as  an  instrumental  agency,  and  not  by 
water  or  "  empty  space,"  as  capable  of  receiving  an  object 
dipped  into  it.  The  labored  effort  of  Cyril  to  show  the  pe- 
culiar virtue  of  water  above  every  other  element,  settles  the 
character  of  this  baptism,  and  at  the  same  time  settles  the 
claims  of  the  theory.  If  the  idea  which  this  Patrist  had  of  a 
baptism,  was  a  dipping  or  a  covering,  why  does  he  assume 
the  task  of  showing  that  water  has  a  better  quality  for  a  dip- 
ping or  a  covering,  than  has  fire,  earth,  or  air?  Why  does 
he  attempt  to  prove  that  this  quality  was  given  to  it  by  "the 
Spirit  of  God  moving  upon  the  waters"  in  the  beginning  of 
creation?  Was  this  necessary  to  qualify  water  to  cover ^  or  to 
be  penetrated  by  an  object  dipped  ?  Cyril  believed  that  there 
was  a  power  divinely  communicated  to  water,  to  purify  the 
soul.  He  believed  that  this  power  belonged  to  it,  as  water, 
irrespective  of  the  mode  of  its  use.  This  is  clearly  shown 
by  his  reasoning  as  to  its  presence  in  every  covenant  trans- 
action; its  use  in  the  w^ashing  of  the  high  priest;  in  the 
symbol  character  of  the  laver;  and  by  the  statement  that  in 
these  transactions  the  water  was  used  as  an  instrumental 
means  (^ta),  having  "magna,vis" — a  great  virtue — and  not 
as  a  fluid,  for  dipping  into. 

HARMONY   WITH   CLASSIC   USAGE. 

In  this  usage  of /Ja^rrt'Cw  by  these  Greek  writers,  there  is  no 


320  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

departure,  not  even  by  a  bair's-breaclth,  from  tbe  usage  of 
the  Classics. 

In  Classic  Baptism  (p.  316,  &c.)  it  has  been  sbown  that 
baptisms  are  effected  by  controlling  influences,  without  any 
conception  of  intusposition.  This  evidence  has  been  ac- 
cepted as  satisfactory  by  competent  judges.  It  has  been 
neither  refuted  nor  denied  by  any.  The  baptisms  of  Elias 
and  of  Elisha,  are  of  this  character.  As  from  wine,  drunk, 
there  proceeds  an  intoxicatiaig-baptizing  influence ;  and  as 
from  an  opiate,  eaten,  there  proceeds  a  soporitic-baptizing 
influence;  so,  from  icalldng  between  the  divided  waters  of 
the  type  Christ  Jordan,  there  proceeds  a  purifying-baptizing 
influence,  as  from  the  person  of  the  antitype  Jordan. 

The  Theorjj. — What,  now,  is  the  claim  which  the  theory 
presents  to  secm-e  this  crossing  of  the  Jordan  for  her  list  of 
dippings?  What  can  be  more  conclusive  than  her  argument? 
*'Is  it  not  clear,  that  the  walking  down  one  side  of  the  river, 
and  walking  up  the  other  side  of  the  river,  is  elegantl}^  put, 
by  the  rhetorical  figure  of  '  a  misuse  of  words,'  for  a  dip- 
ping?"  Perhaps  so.  At  least,  I  think  that  the  argument  is 
very  evidently  concluded. 

I  only  add  that,  in  this  additional  "dry  dipping,"  the 
water-walls  of  the  baptistery  have  lost  their  "  cloud-roof," 
and  the  walking-dipping  has  to  be  without  "  a  covering." 


PASSAGE  OF  THE  KIVER  BY  MIEACLE. 

BAPTISM    INTO   JOSHUA. 
Joshua  3:  16,  17. 

"The  waters  which  came  down  from  above  stood  and  rose  up 
upon  a  heap  very  far  from  tbe  city  Adam,  tbut  is  beside  Zaretan, 
and  those  that  came  down  toward  the  sea  of  the  plaiu,  even  the 
salt  6ca,  failed  and  were  cut  off;  and  the  people  passed  over  right 
against  Jericho. 

"And  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord  stood  firm  on  dry  ground  in  the  midst  of  Jordan,  and  all 


BAPTISM    INTO    JOSHUA.  821 

the  Israelites  passed  over  on  dry  ground,  until  all  the  people 
were  passed  clean  over  Jordan." 

Interpretation. 

"  Et  sicut  de  prioribus  dictum  est,  quia,  '  omnes  in  Moyse  bap- 
tizati  sunt  in  nube  et  in  mari,'  ita  et  de  Jesu  dicatur,  quia  omnes 
in  Jesu  baptizati  sunt  in  Spiritu  sancto  et  aqua." 

"And  as  it  was  said  concerning  the  fathers,  that  'all  were 
baptized  into  Moses  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea,'  so,  also,  it 
may  be  said  of  Jesus  (Joshua),  that  all  were  baptized  into  Joshua 
by  the  Holy  Spii-it  and  Avater." — Origeji,  ii,  743. 

"De  iis  quidem  qui  Mare  Eubrura  transierunt  ....  quod  per 
baptismum  celebratur." 

"Of  those  who  passed  over  the  Eed  Sea,  the  Apostle  says, 
that  'all  were  baptized  into  Moses  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea.' 
But  of  those  who  passed  over  the  Jordan  we  may  also  declare 
in  like  manner,  that  'all  were  baptized  into  Jesus  (Joshua)  by 
the  Jordan.'  So  that  those  things  which  are  related  as  done  in 
the  Jordan,  possess  the  form  of  a  Sacrament,  which  is  celebrated 
by  baptism." — Origen,  ii,  847. 

"On  el-ev  av  xal  Tzapi  Taurrjt;  6  UauXoi:'  Ob  OiXu)  biiaq  dyvoelv,  ddsX^ot, 
oTt  ol  Ttazipsq  ijiJMv  Tzd'^Tsq  dcd  rou  ' lopddvou  dtr^XSov,  xai  Trdvrec  e^'c  ruv 
'Itj(Tol>v  ijjaTzzlaavro  iv  toj  nveupiari,  xal  Tzura/iu). 

"Paul  might  say  of  this:  'I  do  not  wish  you,  brethren,  to  be 
ignoi-ant  that  all  our  fathers  passed  over  through  the  Jordan, 
and  all  Avere  baptized  into  Jesus  (Joshua)  by  the  Spirit  and  the 
river.'" — Origen,  iv,  276. 

.  .  .  .  Td  ok  £l^  'Irjffouv  ftdTZTiff/iay  iv  T(L  dXrj6u)q  ykuxeT  xal  TroTj/xw 
TzoTa/JM,  -oXXd  iyzi  ~a^  ixelvo  i^acpsra.  .  .  .  'Ev  yap  ruj  fiaTTTiffaffSai  sl^ 
'IrjtTouv  Y'/wGo^izSa,  on  Ozo^  !^a)v  iv  rjiuv  iffzc. 

"But  Jesus  (Joshua)  who  succeeded  Moses,  was  a  type  of 
Jesus  Christ  who  succeeded  the  economy  of  the  law  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel.  Wherefore,  though  they  all  were 
baptized  into  Moses  by  the  cloud  and  the  sea,  their  baptism  has 
something  bitter  and  unpleasant,  because  still  fearing  their  ene- 
mies. .  .  .  But  the  baptism  into  Jesus  (Joshua)  by  a  truly  sweet 
and  potable  river,  has  many  choice  things  above  that.  .  .  .  And 
Joshua  said  to  the  people, 'Sanctify  yourselves,  far  to-morrow 
21 


322  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

the  Lord  will  do  wonders  among  you.'  .  ,  .  And  the  Lord  said 
to  Jesus  (Joshua),  'This  day  will  I  begin  to  magnify  thee  in  the 
sight  of  all  Israel,  that  they  may  know  that  as  I  was  ivith  Moses, 
so  1  will  be  loith  thee.'  'Come  hither  and  hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord  our  God ;  by  this  shall  ye  know  that  the  living  God  is 
among  you.'  For  by  the  baptism  into  Jesus,  we  know  that  the 
living  God  is  in  us.  And  the  Lord  acknowledges  the  reproach 
of  Egypt  to  be  taken  away  in  the  day  of  the  baptism  into  Jesus 
(Joshua),  when  Jesus  (Joshua)  thoroughly  purified  {Trspiexdiaipev) 
the  children  of  Israel." — Origeti,  iv,  277. 

LIKENESS   AND    UNLIKENESS   TO    THE    RED    SEA    BAPTISM. 

There  are  very  obvious  points  of  similarity,  and  some  of 
dissimilarity,  between  this  Jordan  baptism  and  the  lied  Sea 
baptism.  By  considering  the  two,  both  in  their  agreement 
and  disagreement,  wo  shall  find  valuable  aid  in  determining 
the  question — What  is  the  real  character  of  the  baptism? 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  points  of  difference  which  most 
concern  us. 

Dr.  Carson  insists,  (without  historical  statement  to  sustain 
him,  and  contrary  to  facts  so  far  as  related,)  that  Israel  was 
in  the  cloud,  on  the  ground  of  a  possible  meaning  of  a  prepo- 
sition used  by  the  apostle  in  connection  with  this  transaction. 
And  this,  to  get  that  for  which  his  theory  makes  inexorable 
demand — "  immersion  in  the  cloud."  lie,  also,  insists  (con- 
trary to  express  historical  statement,)  in  roofing  the  water- 
walls  with  the  cloud,  because  of  another  preposition  used  by 
the  apostle,  without  giving  the  shadow  of  proof  that  Paul 
had  any  reference  to  this  particular  occasion.  And  this  to 
secure  a  quasi  "immersion  in  water." 

Ever}'  one  must  feel  that  such  absolute  resting  on  (not  to 
say  wresting  of)  doubtful  words,  and  such  antagonism  to  an 
historical  record,  would  never  be  ventured  upon  except  in  the 
direst  extremity.  What  shall  be  done,  then,  in  the  case  of 
an  otherwise  ditlo  baptism,  to  meet  the  demands  of  a  theory, 
which  (like  a  famished  ogre  that  can  feed  on  nothing  else)  is 
ever  crying  for  dipping,  dipping,  when  there  is  no  "m  nube" 
or  "sw6  nube"  out  of  which  to  construct  a  dipping? 

There  is  one  water-wall  which  "heaped  up"  looks  down 


BAPTISM   INTO   JOSHUA.  323 

upon  this  baptism  of  Israel,  and  bj  its  miracle  character  is 
instrumental  in  its  accomplishment;  but  the  other  has  run 
away  and  "  immersed  itself  in  the  abysses  of  the  sea — waris 
gurgitibus  fidsset  immersa."  There  is  then  a  lack  of  wall 
whereon  to  rest  the  cloud-roof,  even  if  any  cloud  were  pres- 
ent. The  Red  Sea  baptistery,  then,  must  be  dispensed  with. 
And  with  it,  I  suppose,  must  go  "death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection." And  well  they  may,  for  this  is  a  joyous  baptism 
into  Joshua  Jesus.  No  enemies  are  pressing  on  from  be- 
hind. The  privations  of  the  wilderness  have  all  ceased. 
The  land  of  promise  is  before  them.  How  difterent  this 
baptism  at  high  noon,  from  that  baptism  by  deep  midnight! 
How  different  is  baptismal  subjection  to  the  stern  represent- 
ative of  Law,  from  the  baptismal  influence  proceeding  from 
the  lovely  type  of  a  Gospel  Saviour!  But  the  question  re- 
turns: Seeing  that  the  baptistery  is  gone,  what  shall  be 
done  for  a  dipping?  I  cannot  tell;  unless,  indeed,  after  the 
hard  experience  of  the  theorj',  it  should  conclude  to  share 
in  that,  only,  immersion  of  which  Origen  speaks,  and  float 
down  with  the  onflowing  waters  until  it  should  find  welcome 
rest, —  ^^  Salsi  maris  gurgitibus  mimersa."  !N"o  little  specific 
gravity  is  required  for  a  baptism  in  those  heavy  waters;  but 
there  is  quite  enough  of  leaden  error  in  this  theory  to  give 
it  an  honest  immersion  in  the  deepest  depths  of  a  sympathiz- 
ing Dead  Sea. 

iN".  B.  This  Greekly  immersion  of  the  theory,  by  Origen, 
will  give  to  it  "  death  and  burial,"  but  will  allow  of  no  "  resur- 
rection."    No  dipping  can  be  found  in  this  "  immersa." 

THE    BAPTISM    TAUGHT    BY    ORIGEN. 

We  will  now  seek  for  some  better  baptism  than  that  of  the 
theory. 

Inspiration  does  not  speak  of  this  transaction  as  a  baptism. 
But  any  one  who  should  reflect  upon  the  perfect  accord  be- 
tween the  leading  features  of  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea 
under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  and  the  passage  of  the  Jordan 
under  the  leadership  of  Joshua,  would  feel  that  if  the  former 
were  a  baptism  into  Moses,  the  latter  must  be  a  baptism  into 


324  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

Joshua.  As  the  exigencies  of  the  case  demanded  divine  in- 
tervention to  baptize  Israel  into — make  thoroughly  sul^ject 
unto — Moses,  so,  like  exigencies  demand  that  they  shall  be 
baptized  into — be  brought  thoroughly  under  the  influence 
of  his  divinely  appointed  successor.  And  this  is  done  by 
affixing  the  divine  seal  to  his  commission,  through  a  most 
stupendous  miracle  v^rought  under  his  instrumentality.  The 
object,  "to  magnify  thee  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel,  that  they 
may  know  that  as  I  was  with  Moses,  so  will  I  be  with  thee," 
and  the  means,  "to-morrow  the  Lord  will  do  wonders  among 
you,"  were  distinctly  stated.  History  shows  that  the  means 
were  adequate  to  the  result — "  And  Israel  served  the  Lord 
all  the  days  of  Joshua."  After  reflecting  on  the  language 
of  Paul  interpreting  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  as  issuing 
in  a  baptism  into  Moses,  it  occurred  to  me,  that  by  parity 
of  reasoning  Israel  might  be  said  to  have  been  baptized  into 
Joshua  at  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan.  The  conviction  of 
the  propriety  of  using  such  language  in  the  case,  Avas  not 
diminished  when  I  found,  subsequently,  that  Origen  had 
been  led  to  the  same  conclusion  a  thousand  years  before  me. 
He  declares,  a  dozen  times  over,  that  the  baptism  was  "into 
Joshua."  The  theory,  and  everybody  else,  admits  that  no 
language  is  more  competent  to  point  out  the  element  of 
baptism  than  /Sanr/^to  £<>.  And,  unless  the  most  satisfactory 
reasons  to  the  contrary  can  be  given,  it  must  be  regarded  as 
pointing  it  out  in  fact. 

If  any  one  objects  to  Joshua  being  the  element  into  which 
two  million  men  are  "dipped,"  my  reply  is:  I  object,  also, to 
any  such  nonsense.  Such  brobdignagian  figures  belong  to  the 
theory.  I  claim  "  no  soul  for  poetry  "  like  this.  It  belongs 
to  the  lake  frog  class.  But  I  do  claim,  that  Joshua  is  the  ver- 
bally suggested  clement,  as  pointing  out  the  source  whence 
influence,  under  God,  is  to  proceed,  bringing  these  millions 
into  subjection  to  all  the  rights  of  his  heaven-given  and  di- 
vinely-attested commission.  And  as  illustrative  of  this  ver- 
bally suggested  inness,  I  may  refer  to  the  language  of  Origen 
in  the  last  quotation, — "Forby  ('*')  the  baptism  into  Jesus 
we  know  that  ihe  Iking  God  is  in  us."     Now,  is  it  any  easier 


BAPTISM   INTO   JOSHUA.  325 

for  Ilim  who  fills  all  space  to  get  within  these  bodies  of  ours 
than  it  is  for  all  Israel  to  get  within  Joshua?  It  will  be 
time  enough  to  object  to  Origeu's  "  baptism  into  Joshua," 
when  objection  is  made  to  his — "  living  God  entering  into 
us."  And  whoever  objects  to  the  one,  or  the  other,  will 
probably  be  set  down  as  belonging  to  the  crassissima  Minerva 
class. 

Take  a  more  modern  parallel  passage  which  happens  to  be 
under  my  eye. 

Professor  Tholuck,  speaking  of  John  Calvin  says,  "In  the 
Pauline  Epistles  he  merges  himself  in  the  spirit  of  the  Apostle, 
and  becoming  one  with  him,"  &c.  ^ow,  although  Calvin 
was  not  a  very  stout  man,  yet  as  Paul  is  reputed  to  be  a  very 
short  one,  it  would  be  a  tax  upon  the  imagination  to  con- 
ceive how  the  Genevese  reformer  could  merse  himself  inside 
of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  Most  probably,  any  who 
undertake  the  feat  will  give  it  up  unaccomplished.  Those 
for  whom  the  German  Professor  wrote  will  be  content  to 
understand  (by  this  verbal  suggestion  of  sources  of  influence 
and  a  mode  by  which  that  influence  is  developed)  that  the 
more  modern  Paul  came  thoroughl}^  under  the  influence  of 
the  inspired  Paul — was  baptized  into  Paul — came  so  con- 
trollingly  under  his  influence  as  to  "become  one  with  him." 

This  baptism  will  answer  quite  Avell  for  the  "  baptism  of 
Israel  into  Joshua."  If  they  are  so  subjected  to  his  influence 
as  to  "become  one  with  him,"  Origen  will  not  ask  for  the 
millions  to  get  either  inside  of  him,  or  of  a  pool  of  water. 

But  there  is  other  phraseology  than  that  employed  at  the 
Red  Sea  baptism,  in  connection  with  the  instrumental  means, 
which  gives  additional  evidence  to  the  correctness  of  the 
view  now  presented. 

THE    INSTRUMENTAL   AGENCY. 

1.  It  may  be  remarked,  in  general,  that  the  expression 
^ar^ri^u)  iv  is  uot  the  usual  fomi  for  indicating  the  element 
within  which  baptism  takes  place.  I  do  not  remember  an 
instance  among  Classic  writers  where,  with  the  unoom- 
pounded  verb,  it  is  so  employed  in  connection  with  a  fluid. 


326  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

It  is  used,  I  believe,  twice  indicating  the  body  as  that  in 
which  the  soul  is  raersed. 

2.  This  phrase,  [ia-ziZ.to  h^  is  cmplo^'ed  with  varied  signifi- 
cance. (1.)  In  the  rare  use  just  indicated, — "the  soul  bap- 
tized in  iiv)  the  bodj^"  (2.)  Expressing  locality,  place  where 
the  action  occurred.  Origen  speaks  in  this  connection,  of 
a  baptism  "in  Q.^^)  Bethabara,"  simple  locality.  (3.)  It  ex- 
presses a  period  of  time  within  which  a  baptism  took  place. 
Hippolytus  speaks  of  a  baptism  "m  (ii-)  that  very  night." 

3.  It  marks  the  condition  of  things  during  the  continuance 
of  which  a  baptism  occurred.  Thus  we  are  told  of  a  baptism 
"in  (^i-)  a  calm." 

4.  It  indicates  the  agency  or  instrumentality  by  which  a 
baptism  is  effected. 

Origen  says,  the  baptism  under  consideration  was  "  by 
{h)  the  Holy  Spirit  and  water." 

This  last  statement  is,  of  course,  denied  by  friends  of  the 
theory.  It  must  then  be  sustained  by  evidence.  As  it  is 
admitted  that  l>  may  have  the  force  attributed  to  it,  proof 
in  that  direction  is  unnecessary.  We  are  required  to  show 
that  a  general  possibility  becomes  concrete  in  a  particular 
necessity. 

In  attempting  this  task  we  remark,  that  the  only  antago- 
nistic senses  to  that  claimed  are,  1.  Locality,  2.  Inuess.  If 
these  are  disproved,  then  the  other,  agencij,  is  established. 

1.  The  matter  of  locality  is  settled  at  once.  "  The  Holy 
Spirit"  is  not  a  locality.  "Water,"  the  abstract  element, 
is  no  more  so.  We  have  done  then  with  £v  as  representing 
the  place  where. 

2.  As  to  ^Hnness,"  I  remark  that  this  confronts  us  with 
these  trifling  embarrassments.  (1.)  Making  tw^o  baptisms 
out  of  one  "in  the  Holy  Spirit'''  and  "in  icaicr."  (2.)  One 
in  a  jyersoji  and  the  other  in  a  thing.  (3.)  The  one  a  spiritual 
baptism,  the  other  a  physical  baptism.  This  is  absurd.  It 
is  farther  absurd  to  attribute  such  a  statement  to  Origen. 
(1.)  Because  there  was  nothing  to  call  for  a  baptism  of  Israel 
"  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  (2.)  Because  Origen  did  not  believe 
in  any  such  baptism  in  Old  Testament  times.     (3.)  Because 


BAPTISM   INTO   JOSHUA.  327 

it  makes  Origeii  talk,  T  will  not  say  like  a  theorist,  but  cer- 
tainly like  one  bereft  of  his  reason,  to  say,  that  all  Israel 
were  baptized  in  water,  when  the  miracle  was  wrought  to 
keep  thera  out  of  the  water. 

If  such  are  the  results  of  attributing  to  iv  the  duty  of  point- 
ing out  the  element  within  which  the  baptism  takes  place, 
we  must  excuse  this  particle  from  any  such  duty. 

The  field,  then,  is  left  unoccupied  for  ^v,  instrunriental. 

In  this  sense  Origen  uses  it  in  close  connection  with  this 
transaction.  "Elisha  desired  to  receive  a  gift  through  Elias 
— ^apiaim  did  'HXluv;"  and  it  is  added,  "he  received  the  gift  by 
the  spirit  of  Elias  upon  him — x^P^'^f^^  ^^  -veu/jLan  "IlXiuu  If  iaurdv." 
Here  ^£«  and  ^v  seem  to  be  used,  substantially,  with  the  same 
force.  And  this  suggests  the  perfectly  parallel  passage  re- 
specting x'^P^'^i^^'^'';  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit — 'i2c  did  rub  Ihsb- 

fiaroq  didurat  Xoyuq  auiplaz   .    .    .   aXXu)  M  xo-piffl-tara  ia/mTajv,  kv  ru)  auTui 

nveu/j-arc.  Here,  again,  w^e  have  dcd  and  ^v  hiterchanged,  and 
expressive  of  the  same  idea  of  agency  in  bestowing  "gifts." 

If,  now,  agency  suits  the  passage,  we  have  a  possible  sense 
converted  into  an  imperative  sense,  by  the  exigency  of  the 
case.  And,  1.  There  is  no  embarrassment  in  saying,  "Israel 
was  baptized  into  Joshua  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Avater,"  be- 
cause these  two  agencies  can  cooperate,  under  this  miraculous 
working,  in  accomplishing  this  great  result.  2.  Divine  power 
was  not  only  necessary  to  work  the  miracle,  but  to  influence 
the  minds  of  the  people  to  Secure  the  result.  "  The  Holy 
Spirit,"  then,  and  the  miraculously  heaped  up  "water"  were 
necessary — conjoined — ^agencies  in  eflecting  the  baptism. 

In  another  passage  Origen  says,  "by  the  Spirit  and  the 
river.''  The  whole  "river"  was  employed  in  this  baptism, 
without  one  drop  being  used,  even  so  much  as  to  sprinkle. 
It  was  a  "dry  baptism,"  by  a  river  of  "heaped  up  waters." 
And  as  they  passed  over  Jordan,  gazing  upon  that  crystal 
monument,  ever  rising  higher  and  higher,  witness  from 
God,  magnifying  their  new  Leader,  its  influence  brought 
them  out  of  that  condition  of  forty  years'  subjection  to  their 
great  Moses,  and  brought  them  into  a  like  condition  of  life- 
long subjection  to  his  illustrious  successor. 


328  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

The  "baptism  into  Joshua,  by  the  Spirit  and  the  river," 
"by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  water,"  was  complete. 

Whatever  specitic  difference  there  may  be  between  this 
baptism  and  Classic  baptisms,  the  principle  governing  the 
use  of  the  word  is  essentially  the  same. 


SACKIFICE   CONSUMED   BY  MIRACLE. 

BAPTISM    OF   THE    ALTAR. 
I  Kings  18  :  32-38. 

"And  with  the  stones  he  built  an  altar  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord;  and  be  made  a  trench  about  the  altai',  as  great  as  would 
contain  two  measures  of  seed. 

"And  he  put  the  wood  in  order,  and  cut  the  bullock  in  pieces, 
and  laid  him  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four  barrels  with  water, 
and  pour  it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice  and  on  the  wood. 

"And  he  said.  Do  it  the  second  time.  And  they  did  it  the 
second  time.  And  he  said,  Do  it  the  third  time.  And  they  did 
it  the  third  time. 

"And  the  water  ran  round  about  the  altar;  and  he  filled  the 
trench,  also,  with  water.  ... 

"  Then  the  fire  of  the  Lord  fell  and  consumed  the  burnt  sacri- 
fice, and  the  wood,  and  the  stones,  and  the  dust,  and  licked  up 
the  water  that  was  in  the  trench." 

IJoOtv  ok  ujilv  KSTZitTTSOSTUi  ^ HXiuv  /ja-Tiffeiv  rov  i?.zU(T6/i£vt)Vj  oods  ra  I-} 
rd  TOO  OufftaffTTjfHou  ^uka^  7.ard  ruhq  too  ^ Ayad^  ypmou^^  ^to'ivja  Xourpou, 
Jva  l7./.au6rj  l7zt<puyivToq  h  Tzupi  rod  Kupiou,  fiarriffanroc; ;  ^ ETztxeXzUSTat  yap 
roiq  Upsuat  touto  Toi7,aa<..   .   .   . 

'0  Toivuv  fj.ij  duror;  (ia-ziffaq  rozs,  .  .  .  —cu?  iSa-rl'^Eiv  k'lisXJ.s ;  ^pcirzdq 
vuv  dux  h  oduTt  (iaT:ri%£tj  d)JC  6i  /lairjZa)  duzou'  iaorw  dk  zr^pel  zu  uyciu. 
IJvsu/JLazt  (ia-zi%tiv  xai  izupl. 

"  But  why  do  you  believe  that  the  Elias  to  come  will  baptize, 
when  be  did  not,  in  the  time  of  Ahab,  baptize  the  victim  upon 
the  wood  of  the  altar,  which  needed  cleansing,  at  the  appearing 
of  the  Lord  by  fire?  For  he  commands  the  priests  to  do  this. 
.  .  .  How,  then,  is  he,  coming  according  to  the  words  of  Malachi, 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   ALTAR.  329 

to  baptize,  since  be  did  not  baptize  tlien,  but  committed  the 
work  to  others?  Christ,  therefore,  did  not  baptize  with  water, 
but  his  disciples.  He  reserves  to  himself  the  baptizing  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  fire." — Origen,  iv,  241. 

^Edet^ev  ^HXiaq  too  [iaTzriaiia-oq  Trjv  Iff'/hv  li:\  too  [icupMo  TaJy  oXoy.aurw- 
fiUTiov  do  did.  TOO  Tzopuq,  aXXa  dl  odaTor;  ttjv  Soffiav  o?MxuoT(0(7ag.    .    .    . 

"Elias  has  shown  the  power  of  baptism  by  burning  the  sacrifice 
upon  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings,  not  by  means  of  fire,  but  by 
means  of  water.  For  although  the  nature  of  fire  is  opposed  to 
that  of  water,  yet  when  the  water  is  mystically  poured,  thrice, 
upon  the  altar,  the  fire  begins,  and  kindles  a  flame,  as  though  it 
were  oil." — Basil  Magnus,  iii,  428. 

^Eyu)  Tpciq  lizixkoastq  xara  TuJv  ff^cddxajv,  alq  xaSttpdxru)  ty^v  Soffc'av, 
u8aTC  -Kop  £y£tpu)y,  to  Tzapado^oTaTov  j  xai  roue  npofyj-aq  xara^iakih  Ty^q 
a.ta/0v7j(;,  fwffrrjpioo  dovdp.t(.  ypwpevoq. 

"I  have  three  overpoui'ings  upon  the  wood,  with  which  I  will 
hallow  the  sacrifice,  kindling  fire  by  water,  which  is  most  wonder- 
ful; and  I  will  cast  down  the  false  prophets,  using  the  power  of 
the  mystery." — Gregory  Naz.,  ii,  421. 

"Siquidem  baptisraus  velut  ignis  quidam  peccata  consumit; 
quia  Christus  in  igne  et  Spiritu  baptizat.  Denique  hunc  typum 
legis  in  Eegnorum  libris,  ubi  Elias  super  altare  ligna  imposuit, 
et  dixit  ut  mitterent  super  de  hydriis  aquam  et  dixit :  .  .  .  .  et 
cum  manaret  aqua,  precatus  est  Elias,  et  ignis  descendit  de  coelo. 
Tu  es  homo  super  altare,  qui  ablueris  aqua,  cujus  exuritur  culpa, 
ut  vita  reuovetur.  .  .  . 

"  Typum  baptismatis  demonstravit  Elias,  et  coelum  aperuit. 
.  .  .  Nemo  enim  nisi  per  aquam  et  Spiritum  ascendit  in  regnuni 
ccelorum." 

"Since  baptism,  like  a  fire,  consumes  sins,  for  Christ  baptizes 
by  fire  and  Spirit.  Finally,  thou  readest  this  type  in  the  books 
of  the  Kings,  where  Elias  placed  wood  upon  the  altar,  and  di- 
rected that  they  should  cast  over  it  water  from  water-pots,  .  .  . 
and  when  the  water  flowed,  Elias  prayed,  and  fire  descended 
from  heaven.  Thou,  O  man!  art  upon  the  altar,  who  shalt  be 
cleansed  hj  water,  whose  sin  is  burned  up  that  thy  life  may  be 
renewed. 

"Elias  showed  a  tj'pe  of  baptism,  and  opened  heaven,  which 
had  been  shut  three  years  and  six  months.  .  .  .  For  no  one  can 


330  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

ascend  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  except  by  (per)  watei'  and 
the  Si)h'it."— Ambrose,  \,  727,  728. 

EXPERIMENTUM    CRUCIS. 

This  baptism  of  the  altar  furnishes  a  crucial  test  for  the 
theory.  I  have  never  known  a  friend  of  the  theory  volun- 
tarily to  speak  of  this  baptism.  Whenever  their  attention 
is  called  to  it  by  others,  they  approach  it  as  reluctantly  as 
the  victim  comes  to  the  altar  where  death  glitters  in  the 
edge  of  the  sacrificial  axe. 

There  is  a  painful  foreboding  of  some  fatal  blow. 

True,  there  are  scores  of  cases  which  do  as  fatally  brain 
the  theory;  but  some  word,  or  thought,  or  thing,  by  its  pres- 
ence or  absence,  or  some  figure,  rational  or  irrational,  gives 
material  out  of  which  to  raise  a  cloud,  under  whose  shadow 
there  may  be  a  way  of  escape.  Here,  from  the  nature  of 
the  transaction,  from  the  locality  where  it  takes  place,  and 
from  the  fulness  and  explicitness  of  language,  there  is  less 
opportunity  to  mystify  the  statement,  or  to  elude  the  dam- 
aging blow.  At  the  sea-coast  baptism,  where  "  dip,  and  noth- 
ing but  dip,"  seemed  hopelessly  to  perish,  he  was  charmingly 
revived  by  a  potion  of  poetry  applied  through  "covered  and 
bare!"  At  the  Red  Sea  baptism,  where  there  was  no  dip- 
ping, and  no  chance  for  poetry  through  a  tidal  wave,  two 
prepositions  (tv  and  Otzo)  are  converted  into  architects,  and 
lo!  in  a  trice,  a  baptistery  arises,  within  which  "  death,  bur- 
ial, and  resurrection"  are  enacted  secundum  artem.  In  the 
baptism  of  Elijah  the  roof  is  taken  from  the  baptistery,  but 
then  there  is  the  going  down  and  the  coming  up,  which  an- 
swers, in  poetry,  for  "dip,"  just  as  well  as  "covered  and 
bare."  And,  in  the  baptism  under  Joshua,  although  the 
baptistery  is  still  farther  dilapidated  by  the  loss  of  one  of  its 
walls,  still  there  is  the  bed  of  the  river  left,  and  that  will 
still  "  darkly  shadow  "  a  grave  and  burial.  All  this  being 
admitted  to  be  unanswerable  (and,  in  all  good  conscience,  I 
can  say  that  I  do  most  sincerely  think  that  it  is  very  embar- 
rassing to  answer  such  flights  of  poetry,  and  such  feats  of 
architecture),  we  come  to  the  case  in  hand. 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   ALTAR.  331 

Here  we  have  no  tidal  wave  to  poetize  this  altar  baptism. 
We  have  no  prepositions  wherewith  to  build  water-houses 
without  any  water  in  them.  We  have  no  bed  of  the  sea  to 
convert  into  a  sepulchre.  We  have  no  channel  of  a  river 
into  which  Ave  may  "go  down,"  and  out  of  which  we  may 
"come  up."  We  are  not  even  at  the  edge  of  a  pool  where 
a  baptism  must  be  by  dipping,  or  the  inspired  writer  "  tells 
a  falsehood."  We  are  not  introduced  to  a  baptism  by 
"washing"  at  a  tent  door  to  be  silenced  by  the  revelation, 
that  "washing  may  be  by  dipping,  and  that  baptism  wash- 
ing must  be  by  dipping."  AVe  have  not  a  baptism  by  sprin- 
kling, to  be  pointed  to  "a  washing"  at  some  other  time  and 
place  as  the  baptism,  for  "  sprinkling  cannot  baptize."  We 
have  not  the  case  of  hot  iron  baptized  by  cold  water  poured 
upon  it,  to  hear  the  smiling  solution — "  the  pouring  was  long 
enough  to«cover  it,  and  the  covering  was  the  baptism."  We 
have  no  one  baptized  by  an  opiate  pill,  to  be  schooled  in  that 
rhetoric  which  dips  sleepers,  by  figure,  into  pools  of  water. 
We  are  on  the  top  of  old  Carmel.  Seas,  rivers,  pools,  water- 
walls,  clouds,  dry  channels,  goings  down  and  comings  up, 
have  all  disappeared  from  the  scene.  We  have  indeed  a 
washing;  but  we  are  expressly  told  that  it  was  without  a 
dipping.  And  we  have  a  pouring;  but  we  are  as  explicitly 
told  that  it  was  7iot  "continued  long  enough  to  cover." 

What  is  to  be  done  with  this  Carmel  baptism  ? 

Let  the  friends  of  the  theory  answer : 

"J.??  J/  child  can  understcmd  it  7neans  a  dipjnng." — Carson. 

On  this  very  remarkable  baptism  Dr.  Carson  has  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph : 

"Dr.  Miller  (of  Princeton)  tells  us  that  Origen  was  con- 
temporary with  Cyprian,  and  that  he,  in  commenting  on 
I  Kings  18:  33,  tells  us  that  'Elijah  baptized  the  wood  on 
the  altar.'  This  proceeds  on  a  principle  I  have  often  ex- 
plained and  illustrated.  Every  child  knows  that  our  word 
immerse  may  be  used  in  the  same  way." 

And  this  is  all  that  Dr.  Carson  has  to  say  on  a  case  which, 
on  the  face  of  it,  utterly  destroys  his  theory  as  to  the  mean- 


332  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

ing  of  ^aTTTtXoi,  and  nullifies  the  "  demonstratioa  "  wliicli  sums 
up  his  lite  labor. 

It  seems  impossible  that  Dr.  C.  could  ever  have  read  the 
passage  which  he  so  cavalierly  expounds.  There  is  not  the 
shadow  of  evidence  for  the  baptism  turning  on  the  quantity 
of  water  used.  The  amount  of  water  was  to  satisfy  all,  that 
there  was  no  concealed  fire.  The  use  of  the  word  baptize 
contemplates  a  wholly  different  aspect  of  the  altar  and  sac- 
rifice. They  needed  "cleansing"  {^.ourpou)  to  be  acceptable 
to  God. 

But  let  us  look  at  that  "  principle"  so  often  explained  that 
it  has  become  too  wearisome  even  to  state. 

It  is  probable  that  he  refers  to  the  explanation  given  of 
the  sea-coast  baptism,  in  which  he  says, — "When  this  word 
(^[iaTZTiX,io)  is  applied  to  an  object  lying  under  water,  but  not 
actually  dipped,  the  mode  essentially  denoted  by  it  is  as  truly 
expressed  as  in  any  other  instance  of  its  occurrence — figur- 
ing the  object  which  is  successively  bare  and  buried  under 
water,  as  being  dipped  when  it  is  covered,  and  as  emerging 
when  it  is  bare.  Can  any  child,  then,  be  at  a  loss  to  learn 
from  this  that  baptism  means  to  lay  under  water?" 

The  Academiciens  of  Paris  having  been  asked  by  Dr. 
Franklin,  "  why,  when  a  fish  was  put  into  a  vessel  filled  with 
water  it  would  not  overflow?"  very  learned  answers  were 
given,  based  on  the  nature  of  the  fish,  to  show  that  it  must 
be  so;  but  they  were  declared  to  be  unsatisfactory.  Being 
asked  for  the  solution  of  the  phenomenon,  he  gave  them 
this  piece  of  advice:  "Gentlemen,  before  giving  reasons  for 
a  fact  be  sure  of  the  existence  of  the  fact.  I  tliwk  the  vessel 
will  run  over."  Before  Dr.  C.  accounts  so  learnedly  tor  iSaTzriXoi 
being  used  in  a  covered  and  bare  figure  dipping,  it  might  be 
well  to  inquire  whether  there  is  any  such  conception  in  the 
word.  I  think  that  there  is  none.  But  even  if  there  were 
any  such  idea  ever  associated  with  this  word,  the  altar  is  not 
"  lying  under  water,"  and  therefore  the  ai)plication  fails.  But 
we  have  another  exposition  of  this  "open  sesame"  principle 
to  wliich  all  obstacles  to  the  theory  must  give  way. 

It  is  called  upon  in  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   ALTAR.  833 

dew.  He  says,  "  It  will  be  of  importance  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion though  it  should  occupy  some  pages."  After  "some 
pages"  we  have  this  result:  "Without  doubt  the  verb  ex- 
presses, here,  mode  as  well  as  anywhere  else.  .  .  .  The  Holy 
Spirit  by  Daniel  used  the  word  signifying  to  immerse,  Avhen 
speaking  of  the  wetting  of  Nebuchadnezzar  by  the  dew,  to 
enliven  the  style.  .  .  .  Wetting  by  the  gentlest  distillation 
in  nature,  is  here,  in  the  liveliest  and  most  imaginative 
language,  figured  as  an  immersion."  .  .  .  "Can  any  child 
then  be  at  a  loss,"  &c. 

Whether,  in  this  application  of  the  principle,  this  "lively 
and  imaginative  language"  extends  to  figuring  the  king  as 
"lying  under  water,"  when  the  dew  was  on  him,  and  as 
"bare"  when  the  beams  of  the  sun  had  dried  up  the  moist- 
ure, we  are  not  told.  And  having  "no  soul  for  poetry,"  I 
am  not  able  to  throw  any  light  upon  the  matter.  However, 
we  have  "the  principle  often  explained  and  illustrated," 
which  is  to  illuminate  the  Carmel  baptism.  We  are  by  "  a 
lively  imagination  "  to  conceive  of  the  altar  as  "  lying  under 
water,"  while  the  water  is  poured,  and  "bare"  when  the 
pouring  stops.  Then  convert  the  action  of  pouring  into  the 
action  of  dipping,  and  you  have  a  lively  and  imaginative  ex- 
pression for  an  immersion. 

Now,  "can  any  child  fail  to  understand"  from  this  Jlo7vi?i(/ 
tide,  falling  dew,  and  pouring  water,  that  '■^  [iaT.TiX,u)  means  to 
dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature?" 

So  long  as  the  appeal  is  made  to  children,  (and  this  is  quite 
a  favorite  refrain  with  Dr.  C.,)  I  have  nothing  to  saj-.  The 
audience  and  the  ratiocination  seem  to  be  very  well  adapted 
to  each  other. 

One  remark,  however,  I  may  be  permitted  to  make: — 
When  an  object  is  said  to  be  baptized,  and  the  manner  of 
the  baptism  is  not  stated.  Dr.  C.  will  not  listen  to  the  sug- 
gestion of  any  other  mode  of  baptizing  than  by  dipping.  No 
"principle,"  no  "figure,"  no  "beautiful  play  of  the  imagina- 
tion" is  tolerated.  It  is  all  plain,  prose,  dipping.  If  instead 
of  an  altar  "  a  couch  "  is  to  be  baptized,  no  "flow  of  water," 
uo  "gentle  distillation,"  no  "pouring"  can  have  a  hearing. 


334  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

The  coucli  must  be  "  lifted  np  by  pulleys,"  or  must  be  "  taken 
to  pieces"  by  a  bed-screw,  and  carried  forth  for  a  dipping. 
If  a  man  is  to  be  baptized  in  a  desert,  no  pouring,  no  dewy 
sprinkling,  must  be  mentioned.  "The  word  shall  find  the 
water  and  do  the  dipping." 

Such  statements  fully  justify  us  in  saying:  "  If  this  Carmel 
altar  had  been  declared  to  be  baptized,  without  the  historical 
statement  of  the  mode,  Dr.  C.  would  have  insisted,  either 
that  there  was  a  pool  on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  into  which 
the  altar  was  dipped,  or  that  it  was  'taken  to  pieces,'  like 
the  couch,  and  carried  down  the  mountain  to  the  shore  of 
the  sea,  and  dipped  into  the  Mediterranean." 

If  objection  should  be  raised  that  such  a  baptism  would 
be  a  heavy  task  for  the  prophet,  the  answer  would  be  at 
hand,  "Where  were  the  tribes  of  Israel?"  Such  "demon- 
strations" of  dipping,  the  Baptist  world  receives  with  exult- 
ant joy,  and  laments  that "  it  is  not  light  that  is  most  wanted, 
but  religious  honesty,"  on  the  part  of  those  that  cannot  see  it. 

Such  extravagant  interpretations  ignore  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage, moditying  the  meanings  of  words;  conflict  with  Car- 
son's own  judgment,  in  assigning  to  the  word  "enlighten" 
(Figurative  Language,  p.  278)  a  secondary  meaning;  and 
condemns  his  own  condemnation  of  Gale  on  the  ground  of 
bad  rhetoric. 

"//'  is  a  drench,  surround,  steep-baptism.^^ — Fuller. 

"We  pass  on  to  Dr.  Fuller's  treatment  of  this  baptism. 

"Our  opponents  tell  us  thatOrigen  says,  of  the  wood  and 
sacrifice  of  Elijah's  altar,  that  they  were  baptized.  But  as 
we  are  inquiring  into  the  meaning  of /SaTrn'^w  at  the  time  the 
Saviour  used  it,  and  as  Origen  lived  two  hundred  years  after 
this  period,  I  have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  examine- 
this  case.  (!)  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  Origen's  meaning  is 
plain.  .  .  Origen  was  one  of  the  most  impassionate  of  men; 
dealing  in  bohl  metaphors  and  allegories;  and  who  but  sees 
the  force  of  his  words?  .  .  .  What  was  the  idea  in  Origen's 
mind?  It  was  an  immersion.  ...  In  the  case  of  Elijah's 
altar,  the  twelve  barrels  of  water  were  lirst  poured,  and  the 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   ALTAR.  335 

trenches  all  around  filled,  and  it  is  the  effect  of  this,  it  is  the 
thus  being  drenched,  surrounded,  and  steeped,  which  Origen 
figuratively  calls  a  baptism." 

Dr.  Fuller  is  evidently  preparing  for  some  sad  catastrophe, 
as  vi'ith  funereal  step  he  approaches  Elijah's  altar.  His  "two 
hundred  years  after  Christ;"  "most  impassionate  of  men;" 
"allegories  and  metaphors;"  "who  but  sees?"  "I  have  not 
thought  it  worth  while  to  examine  the  case;"  sound  very 
much  like  a  requiem  at  the  death  and  burial  of  the  theory. 
The  denouement  explains  it  all.  He  was  invited  to  a  bap- 
tism by  the  great  Grecian  Instructor  of  the  Alexandrian 
school,  and  instead  of  taking  him  down  a  river's  bank,  he 
conducts  him  up  a  mountain's  side;  and  there  he  witnesses 
the  rite  administered,  not  by  "  going  down  into  the  water 
and  coming  up,"  not  by  "  dipping  or  covering,"  but  by  the 
simple  outpouring  of  water.  Now,  it  will  not  answer  for  the 
Baptist  to  come  to  open  war  with  the  Greek,  so  he  makes 
the  best  terms  possible,  and  very  aftably  says:  "  Your  mis- 
use of  terms  is  quite  excusable;  nay,  highly  rhetorical.  Who 
cannot  see  the  impassioned  poetry  which  converts  the  act  of 
dipping  into  'a  drenching,  surrounding,  and  steeping  effect?'  " 

To  argue  or  expostulate  with  those  who  can  originate  or 
accept  such  figures,  is  all  in  vain.  Gale  will  still  dip  his 
lake  in  the  frog's  blood,  and  the  theorists  will  still  dip  Car- 
mel's  altar  by  "drenching,  surrounding,  and  steeping." 
We  must  be  content,  with  the  rest  of  the  "enlightened  but 
dishonest"  world,  to  believe  that  Origen  meant  just  what 
he  said,  and  that  the  altar  was  baptized  by  pouring  water 
upon  it. 

I  do  not  know  whether  we  should  most  rejoice  or  regret, 
that  the  theorists  are  tending  steadily  toward  those  regions 
(abounding  in  light,  but  void  of  honesty)  which  we  inhabit. 
There  is  this  comfort,  however,  we  will  try  and  keep  our 
"light,"  while  they  will  bring  "honesty"  enough  for  us  all. 
Thus  we  can  live  with  a  fair  fixme  and  in  goodly  fellowship. 
In  the  meantime  we  will  mark  the  progress  of  Dr.  Fuller, 
as  the  representative  man  of  the  coming  theorists, 

1.  lie  once  wrote  on  this  wise,  making  baptism  centre  in 


3d6  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

the  performance  of  a  definite  act:  "In  commanding  his  dis- 
ciples to  be  baptized,  Jesus  knew  what  act  he  enjoined,  and 
he  could  have  been  at  no  loss  to  express  his  meaning." 

2.  He  eviscerates  baptism,  subsequently,  of  all  definite 
act,  thus:  '■'■It  inatters  not  how  the  baptism  is  effected." 

3.  He  again  stretches  out  his  wand,  and  lo !  all  act  has 
disappeared  from  the  essence  of  the  word,  and  it  is  turned 
into  a  condition:  "Suppose  a  man  should  lie  in  the  baptistery 
while  it  is  filling  by  water  poured  into  it.  The  pouring  would 
not  be  an  immersion  (baptism),  yet  an  immersion  (baptism) 
would  take  place  if  he  remained  long  enough." 

4.  And  now  condition,  in  turn,  disappears,  and  effect  takes 
its  place :  "  It  is  the  effect  of  this;  it  is  the  thus  being  drenched, 
surrounded,  and  steeped,  which  Origen  figuratively  calls  a 
baptism." 

But  the  marvel  is,  that  having  thus  passed  from  definite 
act  to  general  act,  and  from  general  act  to  condition,  and 
from  condition  to  efiect,  he  should  talk  of  an  opponent  after 
this  manner:  "  One  of  the  latest  and  most  prominent  of  our 
opponents,  drops  altogether  the  act,  and  assures  us  that 
^ar.ri'iiu  means" — an  efiect.  .  .  .  "  It  is  appalling  to  think 
how  many  receive  the  sentiments  of  these  authors,  and  quiet 
themselves  by  their  assertions.  One  consolation,  however,  is 
left:  it  is  plain  from  this  last  feeble  attempt  to  defend" — an 
efiect — "that  the  case  is  becoming  desperate;  that  God  is 
causing  error  to  culminate,  and  show  itself  on  an  eminence, 
and  thus  be  exposed  before  all." 

Strongly  said,  for  one  who  has  brought  baptism  to  the 
issue  of  "efiect,"  on  this  mountain  top.  The  "eminence" 
to  which  God  has  brought  the  "  error  "  of  this  theory,  for  its 
culmination,  is  that  same  old  Carmel  where  the  "error"  of 
Baal's  worshippers  was  exposed.  There,  at  the  feet  of  the 
grand  old  prophet,  (solitary  but  glorious  and  triumphant 
defender  of  Jehovah  and  his  truth,)  do  these  good  brethren, 
"exposed  before  all,"  lay  down  their  error,  which  affirms 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  commanded  "  nothing  but  an  act.'' 
As  surely  as  Baal  was  no  God;  so  surely  is  "  the  theory"  no 
truth. 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   ALTAR.  337 

One  more  illustration  of  the  treatment  of  this  baptism, 
and  I  will  leave  it.  R.  Ingham  (Handbook  on  Christian 
Baptism,  London,  octavo,  pp.  620)  says,  (p.  530):  "Origen, 
who  died  A.D.  254,  is  quoted  as  saying,  that  '  Elias  did  not 
baptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar,  but  commanded  the  priests 
to  do  that.'  When  our  friends  begin  thus  to  baptize  the 
dear  babes  brought  to  them,  to  have  a  good  work  wrought 
on  them,  we  believe  that  '  the  right  of  election '  will  lead  to 
the  choice  of  a  single  immersion  as  more  convenient  than 
such  a  trine  pouring  as  caused  the  water  to  run  'round 
about  the  altar,'  and  'filled  the  trench  also  with  water.' 
And  we  rather  opine  that  such  a  practice  would  help  in  per- 
ceiving that  the  baptism  enjoined  in  God's  word  is  nothing 
else  than  immersion." 

"Well,  I  suppose  that  when  good  argument  has  ceased,  and 
bad  rhetoric  will  no  longer  answer,  we  must  take  the  best 
jokes  that  can  be  got  up.  And  if  this  joke  about  "the  dear 
babes,"  is  the  very  best  that  "R.  Ingham  "  can  get  off,  we 
must  accept  it,  excusing  its  heaviness  on  the  ground  of  a 
naturally  dolorous  spirit,  in  view  of  the  failure  of  the  theory 
under  the  experimenium  crucis  of  Mount  Carmel. 

The  theorists  having  been  allowed  to  interpret  this  bap- 
tism according  to  their  own  conceptions,  we  find  that  their 
methods  for  escape  under  difficulties  are  both  various  and 
inconsistent.  This  we  would  expect  from  fundamental  error 
in  the  conception  of  the  nature  of  a  baptism.  Error  is  mul- 
tiform. Truth  is  uniform.  Not  only  are  their  interpreta- 
tions discordant  and  disregardful  of  the  principles  of  lan- 
guage, but  some  of  them,  at  least,  bear  internal  evidence 
that  the  passage  in  the  original  had  never  been  examined. 


We  will,  now,  let  the  Patrists  speak  and  expound  this 
baptism  by  their  own  language  and  principles. 

1.  The  word  fiar.ri'^ui  as  used  by  Origen  in  this  case  has 
nothing  to  do  with  a  "dipping"  as  claimed  by  Carson. 

The  conversion  of  the  acts  of  "flowing,"  "falling,"  "pour- 
22 


338  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

ing,"  by  figure,  into  the  act  of  dipping,  Dr.  C.'s  own  friends 
unite  to  repudiate. 

It  has  nothing  to  do  with  "passion,"  "metaphor,"  "alle- 
gory," "drenching,"  "surrounding,"  "steeping,"  (Fuller.) 

Origen  is  making  a  cool,  critical  examination  as  to  the 
justness  of  Jewish  opinion  in  relation  to  the  administrators 
of  baptism,  and  grounds  his  argument,  largely,  on  the  lead- 
ing feature  of  this  baptism,  viz.,  that  it  was  not  effected  by 
Elias  personally.  We  do  not  look  for  passion,  or  metaphor, 
or  allegory,  in  a  critical  argument.  The  word  has  as  little  to 
do  with  " drenching,"  "  surrounding,"  and  "steeping."  The 
logical  and  grammatical  relation  of  the  word  is  in  an  entirely 
different  direction.  Its  relation  is  with  ra  dBo/ieva  Xourpod,  "that 
which  needed  cleansing."  A  newly  built  altar  was  required 
to  be  "cleansed  and  purged"  (Ezekiel  43  :  18-20).  The  ap- 
pointed mode  of  cleansing  was  not  adopted  by  the  prophet; 
nor  does  the  Scripture  say  that  he  used  the  water  for  cleans- 
ing; but  our  business  is  with  Origen  and  his  conceptions, 
who  uses  the  word.  He  believed,  for  he  expressly  declares, 
that  a  "  cleansing  was  necessary."  Now  it  is,  precisely,  to 
meet  this  exigency  that  Origen  uses  the  word.  AVith  the 
form  employed  to  effect  this  cleansing  /Sarn'^w  has  nothing  to 
do  either  by  intrinsic  force  or  grammatical  relation.  This 
conclusion,  reached  by  the  study  of  this  particular  passage, 
is  in  harmony  with  all  other  writings  of  this  Patrist.  The 
force  of  /?a::T£tw  is  expounded  by  rd  d^6,aeva  Xuo-pov, — "  he  did 
not,  himself,  baptize  (cleanse)  that  which  needed  cleansing." 

2.  Origen's  use  of  the  word  has  no  more  to  do  with 
"  twelve  barrels  of  water  "  and  their  "  soaking  effect,"  than 
it  has  to  do  Avith  the  act  of  pouring. 

According  to  the  phraseology  there  were  three  baptisms. 
The  priests  were  commanded,  (according  to  Origen,)  "  to  bap- 
tize the  altar  by  pouring  four  barrels,  or  pitchers,  of  water 
upon  it."  This  command  they  obeyed,  and  the  altar  was 
baptized.  They  were  commanded  to  baptize  it  a  second  time 
and  in  the  same  way.  This,  also,  they  did,  and  the  altar  was 
baptized  a  second  time.  The  command  was  repeated  yet 
again,  and  again  it  was  obeyed,  and  the  altar  was  baptized 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   ALTAR.  339 

a  third  time.  This  is  the  only  just  interpretation  of  the 
language  employed.  And  it  is  sustained  by  the  well-known 
Patristic  trine  baptism.  If,  then,  this  be  a  "soaking"  bap- 
tism, it  must  bo  made  out  oi  four  pitchers  of  water  poured 
over  a  slain  bullock,  wood  and  stones.  But  such  a  baptism, 
laid  at  the  door  of  this  learned  Greek,  is  enough  to  wake 
him  from  the  dead  to  defend  his  fair  fame. 

3.  Since  "  the  twelve  barrels"  have  been  transformed  into 
"  four  pitchers,"  and  one-fourth  of  one  would  have  answered 
just  as  well  for  Origen's  baptism,  (although  not  so  well  to 
prove  that  the  prophet  had  "put  no  fire  under,")  "the  dear 
children  brought  to  have  a  good  work  wrought  upon  them" 
need  not  feel  so  very  much  alarmed. 

BASIL   MAGNUS. 

The  "effect"  which  Dr.  Fuller  attributes  to  this  baptism, — 
"drenching  and  steeping,"  is  not  much  like  the  efffect  at- 
tributed to  it  by  Basil.  The  one  thinks  it  is  called  a  baptism 
because  the  altar  becomes  watersoaked;  the  other  says  it  is 
in  fact  a  baptism,  because  it  brings  its  own  credentials  in 
"the  power"  to  kindle  a  devouring  fire.  There  is  "power" 
in  baptism,  (that  is,  in  the  water  used  in  baptism  mystically 
poured  thrice,)  not  to  make  very  wet  (!),  but  to  burn  up  sac- 
rifice and  altar  stones,  or  to  burn  up  the  sins  of  the  soul. 
Those  who  do  not  like  Patristic  theology  are  at  full  liberty 
to  reject  it ;  but  those  who  do  not  like  their  philology  must 
first  show,  that  the  Greeks  did  not  understand  Greek,  before 
they  can  be  allowed  to  thrust  a  "drenching"  into  the  place 
of  a  j^urijication,  or  a  "soaking"  into  the  place  of  a  burning. 

GREGORY   NAZIANZEN. 

"  Three  overpourings."  This  language  is  used  without 
the  slightest  hesitation  by  Gregory,  and  in  accordance  with 
all  Patristic  usage  and  sentiment,  to  denote  baptism. 

"  With  which  I  ivill  halloio  the  saerijice."  Again,  we  have 
evidence  that  the  Patrists  attributed  to  water  "a  power" 
not  to  make  Avet,  but  "to  make  holy"  by  "three  j^ourings." 
Water  of  baptism  is,  with  them,  an  agency. 


340  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

"  The  POWER  of  the  mystery.'''  If  anything  has  been  estab- 
lished by  these  multiplied  examples  of  baptism  which  have 
engaged  our  attention,  it  has  been  proved,  that  "the  power 
of  the  mystery"  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  manner  in 
which  the  element  (in  which  this  "power"  resides)  is  used. 
Three  overpourings  irrespective  of  quantity,  or,  once  walk- 
ing through  the  dried  Jordan,  will  equally  well  baptize. 

They  equally  well  baptize,  not  because  of  the  action  in 
pouring  or  walking;  not  because  of  the  effect,  wet  or  dry; 
but  because  of  a  development  of  "the  power"  chcmymg  the 
condilion,  either  of  the  victim  on  the  altar,  making  it  hal- 
lowed for  God's  acceptance  in  sacrifice,  or  of  Elijah,  making 
him  hallowed  for  God's  fellowship  in  heaven. 

AMBROSE. 

Ambrose  says,  the  water  of  baptism  burns  up  sin,  and,  that 
the  baptism  on  Carmel,  by  which  the  sin  offering  was  burned 
up,  was  a  type  baptism. 

He  also  likens  the  person  about  to  be  baptized  by  himself, 
to  the  victim  laid  upon  Carmel's  altar,  and  declares  that  he 
shall  be  "cleansed  by  water — qui  ablueris  aqua''  (the  Latin 
daguerreotype  of  Origen's  statement — ra  d^u/is^a  Xoorpub)  "  and 
his  sins  burned  up." 

It  will,  I  think,  be  admitted  by  the  theorists  themselves, 
that  there  is  no  little  difference  between  their  conceptions 
of  this  baptism  and  that  entertained  by  the  Patrists ;  while 
doubtless  they  will  think — so  much  the  worse  for  the  Greeks. 
For  has  it  not  been  discovered  in  these  latter  days,  that 
"^SaTTTtCw  means  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek 
literature?"  Something  which  Origen,  and  Basil,  and  Greg- 
ory, and  Ambrose  never  knew. 

THE    ERROR. 

Baptist  writers  find  themselves  involved  in  inextricable 
difficulties  in  the  interpretation  of  this  and  kindred  baptisms, 
by  reason,  1.  Of  a  fundamental  misconception  of  the  mean- 
ing of  /5a7:7£>,  supposing  it  to  express  action  rather  than  to 
make  demand  for  condition.     2.  From  supp0!?ing  that  it  has 


BAPTISM   OF  THE   ALTAR.  341 

no  secondary  meaning.  They  involve  themselves  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  difficulties  which  they  did  so  long  as  they 
denied  to  /Sa-rw  a  secondary  meaning.  Then,  when  a  berry 
was  pressed  in  the  hand  and  the  hand  was  said  to  be  bapted 
(dipped),  of  course,  as  there  is  but  one  meaning  to  the  word, 
it  was  necessary  to  make  out  a  dipping.  This  must  be  done 
in  the  Carson  style  by  making  one  act  (press)  figure  in  the 
place  of  another  act  (dip);  or,  in  the  Fuller  method,  making 
the  loetness  caused  by  the  juice  of  the  berry  to  figure  (by  its 
likeness  in  effect)  a  dipping.  So,  the  hand  wet  by  blackberry- 
juice  is  figuratively  dipped  into  it,  under  the  patronage  of 
"poetry"  and  "passion."  By  the  assignment  of  a  secondary 
meaning  to  (SdTZTcu — (to  dye),  this  swollen  balloon  filled  with 
poetry,  passion,  and  figure,  has  been  pricked,  and  has  col- 
lapsed into  plain  prose.  All  this,  mutatis  mutandis,  applies 
to  their  interpretation  oi  ^anriZu).  They  can  never  interpret 
the  usage  of  this  word  by  the  laws  of  language  and  common 
sense,  without  a  fundamental  modification  of  their  concep- 
tion as  to  its  meaning. 

This  baptism  must  be  interpreted  from  a  Patristic-Judaic 
point  of  view.  The  altar  and  the  sacrifice  are  Judaic;  the 
interpretation  of  the  water  used  as  effecting  a  baptism,  is 
Patristic.  There  is  no  baptism  resultant  from  the  ordinary 
physical  qualities  of  water.  There  is  no  act  by  which  the 
altar  and  victim  are  "put  into  and  under  water."  There  is 
no  act  by  which  the  water  is  brought  upon  the  altar  and 
sacrifice  "long  enough"  to  cover  it  over.  These  are  ad- 
mitted facts. 

To  make  out  a  baptism,  where  there  is  no  baptism  accord- 
ing to  their  "axioms,"  the  theorists  resort,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  all  sorts  of  devices.  And  the  result  is,  that  no  one  of  their 
writers  seems  to  satisfy  any  other,  and,  indeed,  not  to  satisfy 
himself  And  no  wonder,  for  there  is  no  satisfaction  to  be 
found  in  the  direction  in  which  they  are  looking.  One  might 
as  well  look  toward  the  Southern  Cross  for  the  N'orth  Star. 

This  baptism  is  not  one  of  primary  physical  baptism.  It 
is  not  one  of  intusposition  simply,  nor  of  intusposition  with 
or  for  influence ;  but  it  is  a  baptism  without  intusposition — 


342  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

a  cliangG  of  condition  effected  through  the  influence  of  the 
baptizing  agency.  The  water  is  the  baptizing  agency.  Ori- 
gen,  Basil,  Gregory,  and  Ambrose,  believed  that  there  was 
a  "power"  in  water  "  mystically  poured  thrice,"  to  change 
thoroughly  the  condition  of  the  object  to  which  it  was  ap- 
plied. They  believed  that  the  condition  of  this  slain  bullock 
was  thoroughly  changed  ("purified,"  "hallowed,"  "made 
meet  for  the  Lord  at  his  coming  by  fire")  through  the  "  mys- 
tery "  of  the  water  poured  upon  it.  Therefore  they  said  it 
was  baptized. 

In  this  use  of  the  word  there  is  tlie  sternest  adherence  to 
the  principle  regulating  the  word  in  Classic  usage. 

It  is  the  natural,  not  mystical,  "power"  of  water  which 
changes  the  condition,  baptizes  hot  iron  when  poured  over 
it.  It  is  the  natural,  not  mystical,  "  power"  of  water  which 
changes  the  condition,  baptizes  wine  when  poured  into  it.  It 
is  the  natural,  not  mystical,  "power"  of  wine  which  changes 
the  condition,  baptizes  a  man  when  it  is  poured  into  him. 
But  it  is  the  mystical,  and  not  natural,  "power"  of  water 
which  changes  the  condition,  baptizes  the  sacrifice  upon  the 
altar.  The  baptism  is  Judaic  in  its  character.  It  introduces 
its  object  into  a  condition  of  ceremonial  purification. 

Could  any  interpretation  meet  more  absolutely  the  de- 
mands of  a  case  ?  Could  any  interpretation  be  in  more 
absolute  harmony  with  the  laws  of  language  ?  Could  any 
interpretation  be  more  fully  vindicated  by  Classic  usage? 
Could  any  interpretation  be  more  crucially  fatal  to  "  the 
theory?" 

We,  now,  close  the  testimony  of  Grecian  and  Latin  writers 
in  applying  /5a7:r:'^w  to  the  facts  and  ceremonials  of  Old  Tes- 
tament history.  That  testimony  is  given  so  abundantly,  so 
uniformly,  so  explicitly,  and  so  authoritativelj-,  that  few  will, 
henceforth,  hold  in  much  regard  the  theory  which  proclaims 
"  a  dipping  and  nothing  but  a  dipping,  or  at  least  a  cover- 
ing, through  all  Greek  literature." 


APOCRYPHA. 


(343) 


BAPTISM  AND  MIRACLE. 

ALTAR    BAPTIZED    BY    SPRINKLING. 


II  Maccabees  1:19-36. 


"For  when  our  fathers  were  led  into  Persia,  the  priests  that 
were  then  devout,  took  the  fire  of  the  altar  privily,  and  hid  it  in 
an  hollow  place  of  a  pit  without  water,  where  they  kept  it  sure, 
so  that  the  place  was  unknown  to  all  men. 

"  Now  after  many  years,  when  it  pleased  God,  Neeraias  being 
sent  from  the  King  of  Persia,  did  send  of  the  posterity  of  those 
priests  that  had  hid  it,  to  the  fire:  but  where  they  told  us  they 
found  no  fire,  but  thick  water; 

"  Then  commanded  he  them  to  draw  it  up  (oltzo  fta^'avraq-'),  and 
to  bring  it;  and  when  the  sacrifices  were  laid  on,  Neemias  com- 
manded the  priests  to  sprinkle  {Imppdvai  t(L  udazi)  with  the  water, 
the  wood  and  the  things  laid  thereupon. 

"When  this  was  done,  and  the  time  came  that  the  sun  shone, 
which  afore  was  hid  in  the  cloud,  there  was  a  great  fire  kindled, 
80  that  every  man  marvelled. 

.  .  .  "Now  when  the  sacrifice  was  consumed,  Neemias  com- 
manded the  water  that  was  left  to  be  poured  on  the  great 
Btones. 

"  When  this  was  done,  there  was  kindled  a  flame;  but  it  was 
consumed  b}^  the  light  that  shined  from  the  altar. 

"So  when  this  matter  was  known,  it  was  told  the  King  of 
Persia,  that  in  the  place  where  the  priests  that  were  led  away 
had  hid  the  fire,  there  appeared  water,  and  that  Neemias  had 

purified  (fyptffai/)  the  sacrifices  therewith And  Neemias 

called  this  thing  Naphtbar,  which  is  as  much  as  to  say  a  cleans- 
ing (^xa6apc(T/i6q^." 

Inieiyretation. 
"Superioris  eventus  ac  potissimum  oblati  a  Neemias  sacrificii 
narratione.  Sanctum  Spiritum,  Christianorumque  baptisma  sig- 
nificari ; 

(345) 


346  JUDAIC   BAPTISxM. 

"  Arbitror  quod  ncc  ignem  istum  possimus  ignorare,  cum  le- 
gerimus  quia  baptizat  Dominus  Jesus  in  Spiritu  Saneto  et  igni. 

"Quid  ergo  sibi  vult  esse  quod  ignis  aqua  factus  est,  et  aqua 
ignem  excitavit;  nisi  quia  spiritulis  gratia  per  ignem  exurit,  per 
aquam  mundat  peccata  nostra? 

.  .  .  "ElioB  quoque  tempore  descendit  ignis,  .  .  .  hostiam  suam 
tertio  ipse  perfudit  aqua,  et  manabat  aqua  in  cireuitu  altaris,  et 
exclamant,  et  cecidit  ignis  a  Domino  de  ccelo,  et  consumpsit 
boloeaustum. 

"  Hostia  ilia  tu  es." 

"Tbe  narrative  of  tbe  preceding  event  (see  Levit.  9:24),  and 
especially  of  tbe  sacrifice  offered  by  Nehemiah,  betokens  tbe 
Holy  Spirit  and  tbe  baptism  of  Christians. 

"I  think  that  we  cannot  be  ignorant  as  to  this  fire,  since 
we  learn  that  tbe  Lord  Jesus  baptizes  by  the  H0I3"  Spirit  and 
fire. 

"  What  then  means  the  fire  was  made  water,  and  the  water 
kindling  the  fire,  except  that  spiritual  grace,  by  fire,  burns,  and 
by  water,  cleanses  our  sins  ? 

..."  Fire  also  in  the  time  of  Elias  descended,  ...  be  bathed 
the  victim  with  water  thrice,  and  the  water  flowed  around  the 
altar,  and  they  cry  out,  and  fire  foil  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven, 
and  consumed  the  burnt-oflfering. 

"Thou  art  that  victim." — Ajnbrose,  iii,  174. 

SPRINKLING    BAPTISM. 

It  was  stated  in  Classic  Baptism  (p.  346),  "  that  a  slate  of 
complete  purijication  induced  by  the  sprinkling  of  Ibis  water, 
is  as  legitimate  and  true  a  baptism,  interpreted  by  Classic 
Greek,  as  would  be  a  state  of  complele  coverlncj  of  the  body 
sunk  to  the  bottom  of  the  Nile." 

"  Sprinkling  demands,  not  as  of  grace  but  as  of  absolute 
right,  the  acknowledgment  of  its  power  to  baptize." 

This  statement  we  re-affirm,  after  having  largely  consid- 
ered Judaic  and  Patristic  usage.  Unnumbered  examples 
sustain  the  position.  The  case  before  us  furnishes  yet  an- 
other. It  teaches  us,  inmiediately,  through  Ambrose,  and 
with  the  unanimous  consent  of  every  Classic,  Jewish,  and 
Patristic  writer,  that  a  sprinkling  which  is  capable  of  thor- 


ALTAR    BAPTIZED    BY   SPRINKLING.  347 

onghly  changing  the  condition  of  its  object,  is  capable  of 
baptizing  that  object. 

Every  sprinkling  will  not  baptize;  because  a  baptism  does 
not  result  from  the  mere  act,  or,  from  the  sprinkling  of  any 
and  ev^ery  fluid  or  substance.  It  is  essential  that  the  thing 
sprinkling  should  have  a  controlling  power  over  the  condi- 
tion of  the  object  sprinkled,  which  power  finds  development 
by  such  action.  In  all  such  cases  I  maintain,  that  a  most 
Greekly  baptism  (without  any  help  from  figure  and  without 
favor  from  any  quarter)  is  eftected.  Thus  JSTehemiah's  altar 
and  sacrifice  were  baptized  by  water  sprinkled  upon  them, 
being  purified  through  a  special  "virtue  "  belonging  to  the 
fire-water. 

"BAPTISM    (immersion)    BY    SPRINKLING,    ABSURD." 

Dr.  Conant  (p.  99)  quotes  Alex,  de  Stourdza,  Russian 
State  Councillor  of  the  Greek  Church,  as  saying:  "It  is  an 
abuse  of  words  and  of  ideas,  to  practise  baptism  by  aspersion, 
this  very  term  being,  in  itself,  a  derisive  contradiction.  The 
verb  j3a-Ti!^(o^  immergo,  has  in  fact  but  one  sole  acceptation. 
It  signifies,  literally  and  always,  to  plunge.  Baptism  and  im- 
mersion are,  therefore,  identical,  and  to  say,  baptism  by  asper- 
sion, is  as  if  one  should  say,  immersion  by  aspersion,  or  any 
other  absurdity  of  the  same  nature." 

As  Dr.  Conant  declines  to  be  bound  by  his  own  quoted 
authority,  as  to  the  defining  of  ^anTiZut  "literally  and  always 
to  plunge,^^  and  feels  at  liberty,  or  feels  the  necessity  for  nul- 
lifying that  "literally  and  always,"  by  adding  six  other  de- 
fining words,  showing  that,  in  his  judgment,  his  friend  was 
quite  at  fault  in  his  definition;  and  as  Booth  thinks  that 
"plunge,  literally  and  always,"  "would  make  our  senti- 
ments ridiculous,"  I  do  not  know  why  we  should  be  re- 
quired to  strait-jacket  ourselves  in  the  Stourdza  opinion,  as 
to  the  absurdity  of  a  baptism,  or  immersion,  by  aspersion. 

The  Greek  Councillor  forgot  his  Greek,  when  he  said, 
that  there  was  any  essential  absurdity  in  the  phrase,  (to  take 
it  in  the  strongest  and  baldest  form  in  which  the  case  cau 
be  put,)  '■'■immersion  by  sj^rinkling." 


348  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

The  Septuagint  says  :  "  Nebuchadnezzar  was  dipped  by 
the  falling/  dew-drops." — "Ah!  yes,''  repHes  the  theorist,  "it 
does  seem  to  be  absurd  to  talk  of  dipping  by  droppiinj ;  but  it 
is  not  so  in  fact.  There  is  a  lofty  vein  of  poetry,  and  highly 
wrought  figure  in  such  expressions,  which  not  only  imbue 
it  with  all  that  is  rational,  but  invest  it  with  a  sparkling, 
rhetorical  beauty." 

Well,  and  what  do  you  say  of  the  Father  of  Medicine 
speaking  of  "garments  dipped  by  drops  falling  on  them?" — 
"In  good  sooth,  the  absurdity  is,  on  the  face  of  the  statement, 
the  same;  but  we  expound  the  absurdity  out  of  it  in  another 
way.  We  now  lay  aside  poetry  and  figure  (which  we  once 
used  in  this  case),  and  take  the  statement  as  literal.  It  might 
be  thought  that,  in  doing  so,  we  would  certainly  run  against 
'the  absurdity.'  But  we  do  not.  We  turn  a  sharp  corner, 
b}'  the  help  of  a  secondary  meaning,  and  find  this  'absurd' 
phraseology  to  be  most  rational." 

And  how  do  you  treat  the  same  "absurdity"  as  uttered 
by  the  Romans,  c.  g.,  "pastures  dipped  by  dew-drops?'' — "As 
we  have  not  yet  agreed  to  allow  the  Latins  a  secondary 
meaning  for  'dip'  when  used  with  pure  water,  we  again  fall 
back  on  poetry,  and  are  lost  in  admiration  of  the  beautiful 
figure  by  which  the  grassy  plains,  and  hills,  and  valleys  are, 
by  the  giants  of  rhetoric,  picked  up  and  dipped.  Thus  the 
absurd  vanishes  and  the  rational  appears." 

And  is  the  elimination  effected  in  the  same  way  when 
Ovid  speaks  of  "  the  body  dipped  by  sprinkled  water?  " — "  Not 
exactly.  We  do  not  think  it  prudent  to  resort  to  tliese 
highest  flights  of  poetry  and  rhetoric  except  under  pinching 
necessity.  We  seek,  then,  first  to  change  the  word  tingere 
to  iangere,  but  in  case  of  failure  we  fall  back  on  our  reserved 
poetry  and  figure,  which  takes  away  all  'absurdity.'  " 

And  are  English  writers,  who  use  the  same  absurd  lan- 
guage as  do  the  Romans  and  the  Greeks,  converted  into 
sensible  men  by  the  same  process?  What  of  Comus,  whom 
"dew-drops  dip  all  over?" — "We  are  highly  favored  in  that 
ca.se.  Hpirits  and  nymphs  abound.  We  have  only  to  imagine 
the  dew  to  be  -some  elfin  sprite  which  picks  up  the  Leader 


ALTAR    BAPTIZED    BY    SPRINKLING.  349 

of  fun  and  'clips  Lim  all  over'  in  some  convenient  pool, 
and  all  is  rational.  Some  might  suppose  that  it  would  be 
better  to  get  rid  of  the  '  absurdity'  by  allowing  a  secondary 
meaning  to  dip  {wet),  hut  having  once  refused  any  secondary 
meaning  to  the  Greek  'dip,'  and  having  been  compelled  to 
give  that  up  and  to  admit  d^e  as  a  true  meaning,  it  would 
look  too  bad  to  have  to  concede,  still  farther,  the  meaning 
lo  wet  In  refusing  this  meaning  to  the  Greek  word,  we 
must  do  the  same  to  the  Latin,  and  the  English  word,  and 
rely  solely  upon  poetry  and  rhetoric  to  help  us  out." 

And  what  do  you  say  of  the  "immersion  by  sprinkling" 
of  Triptolemus  ? — "  Oh  !  Sir  Walter  Scott,  you  know,  was 
a  poet.  And  although  this  statement  is  made  in  very  plain 
prose,  yet  the  'absurdity'  must  be  taken  out  of  it  by  put- 
ting into  it  a  strong  poetic  afflatus.  He  was  figuratively 
dijypecL" 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  this  very  "  absurd"  mode  of  ex- 
pression has  been  very  widely  adopted  by  Greek,  and  Latin, 
and  English  writers.  And  if  we  should  choose  to  speak  of  a 
dipping,  or  an  immersion,  by  sprinkling,  we  shall  use  language 
with  just  the  same  "absurdity"  as  that  with  which  it  has 
been  used  by  the  learned  and  the  wise  among  all  cultivated 
nations  for  some  thousands  of  years. — "Ah!  but  the}^  used 
dip  and  immerse  with  a  modified  meaning." 

And  can  you  not  give  us  the  benefit  of  a  like  license  of 
usage? — "No;  for,  then,  we  must  abjindon  the  theory — 'one 
meaning,  dip,  plunge,  sink,  immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  bathe, 
whelm,  oueriohelm,  &c.,  &c.,  through  all  Greek  literature.'  " 

Well ;  keep  this  very  remarkable  "  one  meaning,"  which 
is  so  free  from  "  absurdity;"  but  do  spare  us,  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  our  language,  the  sublimities  of  poetry  or  the  pro- 
fundities of  rhetoric.  We  mean  to  speak  in  the  most  un- 
adorned prose.  And  with  our  hand  upon  the  garment  which 
Hippocrates  "  dips "  by  sprinkled  coloring  drops,  we  will 
venture  to  defend  the  altar  baptized  by  sprinkled  napthar, 
even  though  somebody  should  think  it  very  "absurd"  to 
contradict  their  theory  by  talking  like  the  classic  Greeks  and 
Romans. 


350  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

Napthar  =  KaSafntriJ-oq 

In  the  term,  "purification,"  applied  by  N'ehemiah  to  this 
fire-water  after  he  had  purified  the  altar  with  it,  we  see  how 
words  obtain  wider  extensions  of  meaning. 

Purification,  properly,  denotes  an  eft'ect  produced  by  some 
agency.     But,  here,  that  term  denotes  the  agency  itself. 

In  precisely  the  same  manner,  that  which  produces  a  con- 
dition of  cleansing  dSa-^TTiff/j-a)  takes  its  name  from  the  con- 
dition eftected.  Thus  Anastasius  speaks  of  water  as  "bap- 
tism," because  it  eft'ects  a  baptism.  "  Baptism  is  poured  into 
water-pots,  and  they  are  baptized  by  the  baptism  poured  into 
them."  (Bibl.  Patr.,  v,  958.)  Baptism,  here,  cannot  mean 
immersion,  because  there  is  no  immersion  ettected.  That 
which  is  employed  to  effect  the  thorough  cleansing  peculiar 
to  baptism,  has  obtained  the  name  of  the  efiect  produced. 

So,  "  two  baptisms,"  water  and  blood,  come  from  the 
Saviour's  side. 

Napthar,  wine,  sanctified  water,  heifer  ashes,  were  agencies 
which,  severally,  had  "power,"  "virtue,"  "force"  to  bap- 
tize bi/  sprinJdi)i(j  and  otherwise,  Stourdza  to  the  contrary, 
notwithstanding. 

AMBROSE. 

Ambrose  says :  "  This  baptism  was  especially  significant 
of  Christian  baptism."  It  is  not  Christian  baptism,  but  it 
is  a  baptism;  and  by  reason  of  the  agencies  operating,  and 
the  nature  of  the  eft'ect  produced,  it  had  a  vividness  of  sig- 
nificance beyond  ordinary  type  baptisms.  The  sacrifice  of 
Abel's  lamb  was  significant  of  the  great  atoning  sacrifice 
of  Calvary;  but  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  by  his  father,  was  a 
far  more  significant  type  of  the  sacrifice  of  "  the  only  be- 
gotten Son  of  the  Father." 

The  resemblance  between  the  baptism  of  Nehemiah  and 
Christian  baptism  is  expressly  declared  by  Ambrose.  It  is 
not  found  in  nuy  form  of  act  done,  nor  in  any  resultant  covered 
condition.  It  consists  in  the  use  of  fire  and  water,  as  agen- 
cies, and  in  the  purified  condition  consequent  upon  their 
influence.     "  I  think  that  we  cannot  be  ignorant  as  to  this 


ALTAR    T5APTISM    BY   SPRINKLTNU.  ^51 

fire,  since  wc  learn  that  the  Lord  Jesus  baptizes  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire.  What,  then,  means  the  fire  made  water,  and 
the  water  kindling  the  fire,  except,  that  spiritual  grace  by 
fire,  burns,  and  by  water,  cleanses  our  sins." 

This  is  Ambrose's  own  exposition;  and  how  utterly  it 
ignores  a  dippiiifj,  i  nce<l  not  say. 

COMMON   FEATURE. 

This  is  the  last  of  those  baptisms  with  which  miracle  is 
(really  or  supposedly)  associated.  In  glancing  back  over 
them  we  see  many  diversities  in  them,  and  some  jioinls  of 
rcsendjlance.  Their  common  fitness  to  shadow  Ibrtli  the 
ba[)tiHm  of  Christianity  cannot  be  in  the  things  in  which 
they  differ;  nor  can  it  be  in  minor  points  in  which  tlicy 
agree.  There  must  be  some  one,  bold,  outstanding  [)(>int,  of 
agreement  by  which  they  are  fitted  to  fulfil  the  same  duly. 
There  is  one,  and  but  one,  such  point  of  agreement.  It  is 
found  in  a  change  of  condition  inducing  purification.  The 
action  in  the  ba[)tiHms  is  diverse  without,  in  any  case,  ap- 
proaching to  the  form  of  DU'i'iNo.  The  mode  of  using  the 
water  is  diverse  without  any  approach  to  a  covcrinfj.  The 
point  in  which  they  agree,  without  exception  as  Patristicully 
interpreted,  is  the  resultant  condition  (d'  purification. 

No  one  has  studied  Patristic  baptism  to  any  pur[)ose  who 
has  not  learned,  upon  its  very  threshold,  that  purification 
was  its  sine  qua  non  feature.  How  they  used  the  water  is 
not  included  in  the  present  discussion.  The  business,  in 
hand,  is  to  prove  that  (he  transactions  passed  in  review  were 
called  by  them  baptisms,  and  the  ground  on  which  they  were 
BO  designated.  The  evidence  dctei-mining  these  points  may 
be  found  within  the  domain  of  Judaic  baptisms,  without 
trespassing  on  that  of  Christian  baptism.  We  claim  that 
they  were  called  baptisms,  because  they  exhibit  a  thorough 
change  of  condition ;  and  types  of  Christian  baptism,  because 
the  change  was  from  impurity  to  purity.     " 

This  na[»thar  baj)tism  makes  a  clear  path  for  iJr.  Fuller 
to  make  farther  [»rogress  in  the  right  direction.  Having 
abandoned  modal  dip  for  "  immerse  in  any  way,"  even   by 


352  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

"pouring  if  continued  long  enough  to  cover;"  and  having 
yielded  up  pouring  long  enough  to  cover,  for  "pouring  long 
enough  to  drench;"  he  may  now  drop  the  "  drenching,"  and 
change  the  pouring  into  sprinkling. 

"We  may,  also,  congratulate  "  R.  Ingham"  on  the  very 
great  relief  which  he  must  experience  by  the  discovery,  that 
the  "  dear  babes  brought  to  have  a  good  work  wrought  on 
them"  will  not  require  "twelve  barrels"  of  water  to  be 
poured  over  them.     A  sprinkle  will  suffice. 


BAPTISM  BY  SPRING  WATER. 

CEREMONIAL    PURIFICATION. 

Judith  12 :  5-9. 

"And  the  servants  of  Holofernes  brought  her  into  the  tent, 
and  she  slept  until  midnight  j  and  she  arose  at  the  morning 
watch. 

"  And  she  sent  to  Holofernes,  saying,  Let  my  lord,  now,  com- 
mand that  thy  handmaid  may  go  out  for  prayer. 

"And  Holofernes  commanded  his  body-guard  not  to  hinder 
her;  and  she  remained  in  the  tent  three  days,  and  went  out 
nightly  into  the  valley  of  Bethuha,  and  baptized  herself  in  the 
camp  at  the  fountain  of  water. 

"  And  as  she  went  up,  she  besought  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 
to  direct  her  way  to  the  raising  up  of  the  children  of  her  people. 

"And  entering  in  pure,  she  remained  in  the  tent."  .  .  . 

Septuagint. 

Ka\  s^sTzopevsTO  xaza  vuxra  elq  rr^v  <pdpayya   BzZu).oua,  xai  l,3aT:7:!^eTO 

Kai  wq  avilSr],  i.8isTo  rou  A'upiou  0euu  ^Iffpaij?..  .  .  .  A'al  dffr.optooiiivTj 
xaiapa  xapi/ieve  ttj  <Txrj>fj  .... 

What  (he  Theory  says. 

CARSON. 

"This  ought  here  to  have  been  translated  she  dipped  her- 
self. ...  It  is  evident  that  though  she  was  in  a  camp,  she 
was  in  such  a  part  of  it  as  afforded  her  the  necessary  seclu- 


BAPTISM   BY   SPRING   WATER.  353 

sion.  .  .  .  "We  neither  imagine  nor  assume  that  Judith  was 
immersed  in  water.  It  is  from  the  established  meaning  of 
the  word,  not  from  views  of  independent  probability,  that 
we  must  derive  our  knowledge  of  the  fact.  Even  were  the 
fact  improbable  in  itself,  the  testimony  of  the  word  would 
establish  it.  .  .  .  I  care  not  if  there  had  not  been  a  fountain 
at  all  in  Bethulia,  she  might  have  been  immersed  without 
it.  If  from  other  places  I  prove  that  immerse  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  this,  in  every  situation,  will  provide  the 
water.  We  refuse,  then,  to  be  ganger  of  the  fountain  of 
Bethulia;  let  them  dip  it  who  need  the  evidence.  .  .  . 

"I  care  not  whether  she  was  immersed  in  the  fountain,  or  in 
a  cistern,  or  bath  beside  it.  The  historian  understands  that  it 
was  in  the  fountain.  The  preposition,  indeed,  does  not  desig- 
nate this,  but  it  is  often  used  when  in  might  have  been  used. 
That  the  historian  meant  that  she  was  immersed  in  the  foun- 
tain, is  plain  from  his  speaking  of  her  praying  immediately 
on  ascending.  .  .  .  It  cannot  be  known,  or  rationally  admitted, 
that  she  was  dipped,  but  on  the  testimony  of  this  word.  .  .  . 

"  Was  it  not  usual  to  have  stone  troughs  at  fountains,  for 
the  purpose  of  watering  cattle  ?  .  .  The  immersion  is  proved, 
not  by  the  preposition,  but  by  the  verb;  and  though  at  a  foun- 
tain does  not  signify  in  a  fountain,  yet  it  is  consistent  with  it. 
.  .  .  Is  it  not  evident,  on  the  face  of  the  document,  that  Ju- 
dith went  out  from  the  camp  to  the  fountain  at  Bethulia,  for 
the  purpose  of  bathing,  or  washing  her  whole  person  ?  .  .  . 
Why  did  she  go  to  the  fountain  ?  Why  did  she  leave  the 
tent?  Could  not  a  small  basin  of  water  have  served  the 
purpose  of  successive  washing?  .  .  . 

"All  my  opponents  endeavor  to  take  advantage  of  my 
candor  in  proving  the  secondary  meaning  of /Ja^rw,  taking  it 
for  granted  that  this  equally  applies  to  fiar.ri^w.  Let  fia-ri'^m 
show  as  good  evidence  of  a  secondary  meaning,  as  I  have 
shown  on  the  part  of  ^dmw^  and  I  will,  without  controversy, 
admit  the  fact." 

FULLER. 

"  She  bathed  in  the  fountain.  She  was,  of  course,  dressed 
in  proper  apparel.  .  .  .  As  if  to  leave  no  doubt,  however,  as 

23 


854  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

to  her  bathing,  it  is  express!}^  said,  that  'she  came  out  of  the 
water.'  The  pretence,  that  bathing  would  have  been  indeli- 
cate, is  absurd." 

CONANT. 

"According  to  the  common  Greek  text,  this  was  done  ^at 
the  foimtain,'  to  which  she  went,  because  she  had  there  the 
means  of  immersing  herself.  Any  other  use  of  water,  for 
purification,  could  have  been  made  in  her  tent.  .  .  .  There 
was  evidently  no  lack  of  water  for  the  immersion  of  the 
body,  after  the  Jewish  manner,  namely,  by  walking  into 
the  water  to  the  proper  depth,  and  then  sinking  down  till 
the  whole  body  was  immersed." 

ARGUMENT    OF    THE    THEORY. 

Admissions. 

It  is  admitted  by  the  friends  of  the  theory,  that  there  are 
no  incidental  circumstances  connected  with  this  baptism  of 
Judith,  which  show  that  a  dipping  did,  in  fact,  take  place. 

One  of  the  most  marvellous  things  connected  with  this 
cast-iron  theory,  is  the  utter  failure  to  show,  by  incidental 
facts,  that  a  dipping  or  a  covering  of  the  body  in  water  ever 
took  place.  There  is  no  such  evidence  to  show,  that  in  a 
single  instance,  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  the  body  was  dip- 
ped into  water  in  etfecting  a  Jewish  purification. 

This  marvel  is  only  paralleled  by  that  other  marvel,  to  wit, 
the  courageous  conflict  with  facts,  which  declare  that  no  such 
dipping  took  place,  in  the  hope  that  some  weapon  in  the  ar- 
mory of  poetry  or  rhetoric  may  win  a  triumph  for  quasi  dip- 
ping. It  is  of  no  consequence  whether  the  facts  are,  washing 
at  a  tent-door  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel,  pouring  on  a  lofty 
mountain  summit,  sprinkling  a  temple  altar,  or  walking 
across  the  dry  channel  of  a  river,  the  theorist,  without  the 
winking  of  an  eye,  undertakes  to  rosecrucianize  these  base 
materials  into  dipping  gold. 

It  is  admitted  that,  in  this  case,  no  favor  for  dipping  can 
be  got  from  the  prepositions.  These  prepositions  are  d^-,  h 
and  £-(.    The  ££?,  however,  does  not  take  down  into  the  water, 


BAPTISM    BY   SPRING    WATER.  355 


but  "into  a  valley."  And  although  Dr.  Carson  says,  going 
into  a  valle}^  will  answer  very  well  for  an  immersion  (wljen 
you  cannot  get  anything  better),  still,  he  does  not  insist  upon 
it  on  this  occasion.  We  have  also  iv  in  connection  with 
^aTZTiZw — liSanriZeria  h  baptized  in — yet  this  is  not  here  in- 
sisted upon  as  pointing  out  a  dipping,  and  indicating  the 
element  in  which  the  dipping  takes  place,  for  the  dipping 
would,  then,  be  not  in  the  water  but  in  the  camp.  Might  it 
not  be  worth  while,  here,  to  review  the  argument  which  de- 
rives evidence  for  a  dipping  from  Iv  eaXdaarj  and  h  ve^iXrj?  If 
instrumental  force  be  not  allowed  to  the  preposition,  why  go 
beyond  naked  locality?  The  sea  was  dry,  and  the  miracle- 
cloud  was  just  as  dry.  If  an  enclosure  was  made  by  the  re- 
mote water-walls,  there  was,  perhaps,  as  lofty  and  certainly 
a  more  closely  investing  enclosure  of  army  tents,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  valley-walls.  Indeed,  we  are  only  saved 
from  having  these  army  tents  and  deep  vallej^  sides  flung  in 
our  faces  as  charming  elements  of  a  poetical  dipping,  by  the 
fortunate  presence  of  "a  fountain." 

A  baptism  "in  the  camp  "  is  felt  to  be  not  the  most  favor- 
able position  for  dipping  the  entire  person  of  Judith.  There- 
fore Carson  says:  "It  is  evident,  that  though  she  was  in  a 
camp,  she  was  in  such  a  part  of  it  as  afforded  her  the  neces- 
sary seclusion."  AVhere  the  "  evidence  for  seclusion  "  is,  I 
do  not  know.  It  is  in  evidence  that  these  fountains  of  Be- 
thulia  were  captured;  and  the  great  hope  for  capturing  the 
city  was  in  holding  securely  the  fountains  whence  the  sup- 
ply of  water  for  the  inhabitants  was  derived.  It  is  in  evi- 
dence that  ITolofernes,  after  he  "took  the  fountains  of  their 
waters,  set  garrisons  of  men  of  war  over  them."  (7 :  7.)  And 
it  is  in  evidence,  that  the  camp  was  just  as  close  unto,  or  as 
deeply  in,  this  fountain,  as  was  the  baptism  of  Judith.  The 
very  identical  terms  which  bring  her  baptism  into  relation 
with  the  fountain,  are  employed  to  denote  the  relation  of  the 
camp  to  the  fountain.  "  They  encamped  in  the  valley  near 
Bethulia,  at  the  fountain — 1-\  rr,q  rajyT^^."  What  now  becomes 
of  the,  "It  is  evident,  that  though  she  was  in  the  camp,  she 
was  in  such  a  part  of  it  as  afforded  her  the  necessary  seclu- 


356  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

sion  ?"  It  is  worth  just  as  much  as  ninety-nine  parts  out  of 
a  hundred  of  all  the  utterances  of  the  theory,  in  attempting 
to  get  rid  of  facts,  and  to  thrust  in  a  dipping  into  Jewish 
purifications.     That  is,  it  is  worth  just  nothing  at  all. 

But  Dr.  Carson  is  not  satisfied  with  the  repudiation  of 
these  facts,  in  order  to  secure  a  secluded  place  within  the 
camp.  He  takes  the  lady  "out  of  the  camp"  entirely.  "Is 
it  not  evident  that  Judith  went  out  from  the  camp  to  the  foun- 
tain of  Bethulia,  for  the  purpose  of  bathing  or  washing  her 
whole  person?"  (p.  459.)  Why,  yes;  it  is  just  as  evident 
that  Judith  "went  out  of  the  camp,"  in  going  to  that  point 
which  was  specially  garrisoned,  as  that  the  millions  of  Israel 
were  '■'■  dipxied  in  the  sea,"  or  that  the  sea-coast  was  "-dipped 
in  the  tide,"  or  that  the  altar  on  Carrael  was  "dipped  in  the 
on-poured  water."     Yes,  just  as  "  evident ! " 

If  Judith  had  "gone  out  of  the  camp  "  from  the  tent  of 
Holoferues,  she  would  have  had  a  long  night-walk.  The 
army  and  its  followers  made  up  about  a  quarter  of  a  million 
men.  "  And  they  camped  in  the  valley,  near  unto  Bethulia, 
by  the  fountain,  and  they  spread  themselves  in  breadth  over 
Dothaim,  even  to  Belmaim,  and  in  length  from  Bethulia 
unto  Cyamon,  which  is  over  against  Esdrtelon.  And  the 
children  of  Israel  said,  'Now  will  these  men  lick  up  the  face 
of  the  earth;  for  neither  the  high  mountains,  nor  the  val- 
leys, nor  the  hills,  are  able  to  bear  their  weight.'  "  (7  :  3,  4.) 
We  dismiss,  then,  this — "it  is  evident"  that  she  was  in  a 
secluded  place,  and  out  of  the  camp,  and  could  therefore  with- 
out embarrassment  engage  in  "  bathing  or  washing  her  whole 
person."     Does  "  out  of  the  camp"  translate  iv  Ttaps/xiivXfj? 

Dr.  Fuller  does  not  take  this  heroine  out  of  the  camp,  nor 
is  he  very  solicitous  for  a  secluded  place,  seeing  that  "  she 
was,  of  course,  dressed  in  proper  apparel." 

This  "of  course,"  of  Dr.  Fuller,  wakes  up  as  quiet  a  smile 
as  the  "  it  is  evident,"  of  Dr.  Carson.  Why  "  of  course,"  Doc- 
tor? Are  spectators  from  "the  garrison"  admitted  to  this 
baptism  ?  And  of  what  did  this  "  proper  apparel  "  consist  ? 
Was  an  orthodox  "bathing  robe"  provided  ibr  these  nightly 
dippings?     AVhen  did  the  enrobemcnt  take  place,  before 


BAPTISM   BY   SPRING   WATER.  357 

leaving  the  tent,  or  at  the  fountain?  When  did  the  disrobe- 
ment  take  place,  after  going  back  to  the  tent,  or  on  coming 
out  of  the  dipping?  Would  not  the  putting  on  and  oft'  this 
"proper  apparel"  require  as  much  seclusion  as  the  use  of 
none  at  all?  The  "of  course  she  was  dressed  in  proper  ap- 
parel" does  not  help  much  "the  washing  of  her  entire  per- 
son in  the  camp."  This  "in  the  camp"  is  a  thorn  in  the 
side  of  the  theory. 

It  is  admitted,  that  the  preposition  i-\  has  neither  aid  nor 
comfort  for  the  theory.  Still,  this  is  but  a  gnat  compared 
with  the  camels  which  the  theory  has  become  familiar  with 
swallowing.  And,  after  all,  it  is  about  as  good  as  if  it  were 
iv,  for  "  the  historian  understands  that  it  was  in  the  fountain." 
It  is  a  little  odd,  to  be  sure,  that  Dr.  Carson  should  know 
that  the  historian  understands  one  thing,  when  he  says  quite 
a  difterent  thing.  But,  I  suppose,  the  same  figure  of  speech 
which  converts  one  act  into  some  other  act,  will  suffice  to 
convert  an  historical  statement  into  a  very  difterent  concep- 
tion in  the  mind  of  the  historian.  It  is  freely  admitted  by 
Carson  that  "a^  a  fountain  does  not  signify  in  a  fountain;''  yet 
Dr.  Fuller  very  dogmatically  affirms  (p.  39),  "  she  bathed  m 
a  fountain."  Perhaps  he  thought  that  the  discovery  made 
by  his  friend  ought  to  be  made  use  of.  And  it  was  very 
natural  for  him  to  conclude,  that  "in  the  fountain"  would 
be  of  more  practical  value  if  incorporated  in  the  text,  than 
by  remaining  "in  the  understanding  of  the  historian,"  since 
few  persons  would  have  the  wit  to  find  it  in  the  latter  place, 
unless  they  were  deep  in  the  mysteries  of  the  theorj' .  Thus 
we  have  the  amended  text — "she  bathed  in  a  fountain." 
This  ^TTt  is  an  annoyance.  The  camp  was  pitched — ^-:  r?;?  -r^p^^ 
— "at  the  fountain,"  and  every  one  is  willing  for  them  to 
remain  outside  of  the  fountain.  Judith  was  baptized — 1-\ 
Trj<;  TTTjpj^ — "at  the  fountain,"  and  the  theorists  insist  that  she 
must  be  put  inside  of  the  fountain. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  dimensions  of  this  fountain  are  un- 
known. Yet  every  theorist  seems  ready  to  declare,  if  needs 
be,  under  oath,  that  it  was  large  enough  for  Judith  to  go 
into  it  and  "immerse  her  entire  person."     As  this  point,  in 


358  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

wliicb  alone  lie  feels  any  interest,  is  fullj^  settled  to  Dr.  Car- 
son's satisfaction,  he  refuses  "to  be  tlie  ganger  of  it,"  and 
bids  those  "dip  it"  who  care  to  do  so. 

Dr.  Conaut  knows  why  she  went  to  the  fountain,  although 
the  narrative  is  silent  on  the  subject. 

"She  went  because  she  had,  there,  the  means  of  immers- 
ing herself."  He  says,  that  he  knows  this  because  he  knows 
something  else,  touching  which  the  narrative  gives  no  infor- 
mation to  any  one  else — "any  other  use  of  water  for  purifi- 
cation, could  have  been  made  in  her  tent."  Does  Dr.  Conant 
know,  that  water  for  immersion  could  not  have  been  used  in. 
her  tent  ?  And  is  Dr.  Conant  quite  sure  that  Judith  believed 
with  him,  that  water  "  for  purification ''  (furnished  by  unclean 
heathen  men  in  unclean  vessels)  could  have  been  used  in. 
her  tent  iu  any  form,  with  propriety  ?  Why  did  she  refuse 
to  share  iu  the  meat  and  drink  brought  from  the  table  of 
Holofernes?  "And  Judith  said,  I  will  not  eat  thereof,  lest 
there  be  an  oifence;  but  provision  shall  be  made  for  me  of 
the  things  that  I  have  brought."  Kow,  if  this  Jewess  could 
not  partake  of  the  food  from  Holofernes'  own  table  because 
it  was  "  unclean,"  is  it  well  considered  in  Dr.  Conant  to  say, 
"any  other  use  of  water  for  jyurijicaiion  could  have  been 
made  in  her  tent  ? "  How  could  she  use  in  a  religious  rite  the 
water  furnished  by  heathen,  when  she  could  not  use  their 
food  for  an  ordinary  meal?  Without  caring  to  say,  that  I 
have  special  knowledge  on  this  point,  may  I  not  ask — If  this 
is  common  sense,  what  becomes  of  the  exclusive  knowledge, 
that  she  went  to  the  fountain  for  the  purpose  of  irmnersing 
herself?     Why  not /or  water  free  from  heathenish  pollution? 

But  Dr.  Carson  knows  that  she  dipped  herself,  and  Dr. 
Fuller  knows  that  she  bathed  herself,  and  Dr.  Conant  knows 
that  she  immersed  herself, — where  ?  Why,  in  the  fountain 
from  which  the  Bethulians  got  their  drinking-water,  and 
from  which  "  the  garrison  "  guarding  that  fountain,  got  their 
water.  Well,  this  is  certainly  a  little  remarkable,  that  a  lady 
should  go  and  "wash  her  entire  person"  in  a  drinking  foun- 
tain !  However,  these  learned  men  say,  that  they  know  that 
she  did  it.     We  must,  then,  set  down  this  lady  Judith  as  re- 


BAPTISM    BY   SPRING   WATER.  359 

markably  solicitous  for  her  own  "parification,"  and  remark- 
ably regardless  of  the  purification  of  the  waters  for  those 
who  drank  after  her  nightly  washings ! 

But  there  is  another  item  of  assured  knowledge  furnished 
us  by  Dr.  Fuller — "As  if  to  leave  no  doubt,  however,  as  to 
her  bathing,  it  is  expressly  said  that  she  'came  out'  of  the 
water." 

No  wonder  dippings,  and  bathings,  and  immersings,  are 
furnished  to  order,  when  they  are  accepted  on  authority  like 
this. 

By  whom  is  it  "expressly  said  that  she  came  out  of  the 
water?"  Why  really  by  no  one.  For  it  takes  two  to  make 
up  this  statement.  First,  the  English  translator,  who  is 
responsible  for  the  "come  out,"  and  second.  Dr.  Fuller, 
who  is  responsible  for  the  addendum  "  of  the  water."  Then 
it  should  read — "It  is  expressly  said  by  the  English  trans- 
lator, and  by  me,  that  she  came  out  of  the  water."  Is  it  not 
amusing  to  hear  a  conclusion  builded  on  such  a  foundation, 
which  is  to  relieve  the  subject  of  all  doubt?  ISTo  one  knows 
better  than  Dr.  Fuller  that  the  translation  of  avsliTj  by  "come 
out "  is  without  the  shadow  of  authority.  And  when  Dr. 
F.  adds — "it  is  expressly  said  that  she  came  out  of  the  vmter,'' 
no  one  knows  better  than  he,  that  neither  in  the  English 
translation,  nor  in  the  Greek  original,  is  there  awy  such 
"express"  statement.  And  this  is  Dr.  Fuller's  "best  card," 
which  is  to  leave  "no  doubt  as  to  her  bathing ! " 

What  shall  be  said  of  such  a  statement?  Why,  we  must 
say,  that  it  is  pure  fiction,  and  will  sadly  mislead  every  one 
who  trusts  in  it.  And  what  shall  be  said  of  Dr.  F.  ?  Why, 
that  he  is  just  as  honest  and  true  as  any  other  thoroughly 
mistaken  Christian  man.  He  will  promptly  acknowledge 
his  error  when  his  attention  is  called  to  it,  and,  doubtless, 
will  say  — "  My  statement  was  made  incautiously  and  erro- 
neously. I  should  have  said.  It  is  expressly  stated — 'and 
when  she  went  up,'" — and  to  this  should  have  been  added, 
^^  I  do  most  confidently  believe,  that  this  refers  to  her  'going  up 
out  of  the  water.'"  Had  it  been  "expressly"  said,  "she 
came  out  of  the  water,"  it  would  have  mattered  very  little 


360  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

what  Dr.  F.,  or  I,  might  have  believed  as  to  the  matter;  but 
in  the  absence  of  any  such  statement,  I  have  as  much  right 
to  "believe  conlidently "  that  no  such  fact  ever  took  place, 
as  he  to  believe  the  contrary.  And  if  I  can  give  better 
reasons  for  my  faith,  then  my  confidence  is  better  justified. 

As  to  these  reasons  let  me  appeal  to  facts.  1,  Judith  went 
out,  of  her  tent,  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia.  She  could  not 
go  into  a  valley,  without  going  down  from  a  higher  to  a 
lower  position.  2.  This  descent  brought  her  "by  the  foun- 
tain" where  she  baptized  herself.  3.  After  her  baptism  she 
went  up  out  of  the  valley  to  her  tent.  4.  She  entered  into 
her  tent.  These  are  the  facts  as  to  the  movements  of  this 
Jewish  lady.  I  cannot  say,  that  it  is  expressly  stated  that 
she  did  not  "  come  out  of  the  water,"  for  there  is  not  a  sylla- 
ble said  as  to  her  going  in  or  coming  out.  But  I  can  say, 
that  the  word  relied  upon  to  prove  such  movement  has  other 
duty  to  perform.  It  is  in  proof  that  Judith  went  down  into 
the  valley ;  and  it  is  in  proof  that  she  went  up  out  of  the  valley. 
"We  need  a.vi[i-q  to  eflect  a  movement  the  existence  of  which 
is  in  proof.  If  any  other  movement  is  introduced  into  the 
case,  through  exigencies  of  the  theory,  words  must  be  found 
outside  of  the  history  to  meet  the  new  demand. 

To  enforce  this  interdict  against  pressing  avi,3rj  into  this 
water  service,  I  would  refer  to  Genesis  24  :  15,  16, — "  And 
behold  Rebecca  went  out  {i^er.opiusro)  and  went  down  {xara- 
^aaa)  by  the  fountain  {l-\  t/^v  -tj^'-');  and  filled  her  water-pot, 
and  went  up  {a'Aiirj).'^  AH  the  leading  words  in  this  refer- 
ence are  identical  with  those  in  the  passage  under  consider- 
ation. The  preposition  indicating  the  proximity  of  Judith 
and  Rebecca  is  precisely  the  same.  The  verb  which  ex- 
presses the  movement  of  these  females,  after  their  respective 
missions  to  the  fountain  were  accomplished,  is  the  same.  If 
that  word  did  not  bring  Rebecca  "  out  of  the  water,"  how 
will  it  bring  Judith?  If  that  word  carried  Rebecca  up  out 
of  the  lower  ground  of  the  fountain,  why  shall  it  not  do  the 
same  kind  otfice  for  her  sister  Jewess? 

I  would,  also,  refer  to  chap.  7:8,  12,  17,  18,  of  the  same 
book,  in  which  this  baptism  is  related.    We,  there,  find  the 


BAPTISM   BY   SPRING   WATER.  361 

record  of  a  transaction  in  connection  with  this  same  foun- 
tain. It  is  proposed  to  take  possession  "of  the  fountain  of 
Tvater  which  flows  from  the  foot  of  the  mountain."  In  the 
execution  of  this  project  "they  pitched  their  camp  in  the 
valle}',  and  took  the  waters,  and  the  fountains  of  the  waters 
of  the  children  of  Israeh"  Having  effected  this  object,  "  the 
children  of  Esau  went  up — aA^riaa\> — and  encamped  in  the 
hill  country."  I  presume  no  one  will  contend  that  these 
sons  of  Esau  went  up  oul  of  the  water  to  reach  the  hill  coun- 
try. And  very  few,  I  presume,  will  care  to  say,  —  "It  is 
expressly  stated  that  Judith  came  out  of  the  water,''  and,  thus, 
prove  her  bathing  beyond  doubt.  The  assumptions  of  the 
friends  of  the  theory  are  very  abundant ;  their  facts  are  very 
deficient. 

'■'■At  the  Foimtain." 

It  is  insisted  upon,  that  going  to  a  fountain  for  baptism 
necessarily  carries  with  it  a  dipping  of  the  person  into  the 
waters  of  the  fountain. 

"  Why  did  she  go  to  the  fountain  ?  That  she  was  im- 
mersed in  the  fountain  is  plain."  (Carson.)  "  She  bathed  in 
the  fountain."  {Fuller.)  "  She  went  because  she  had  there 
the  means  of  immersing  herself."  [Conant.) 

Let  us  test  this  assertion,  also,  to  see  whether  it  be  any- 
thing more  than  an  assumption. 

In  Classic  Baptism  (p.  330)  we  have  the  account  of  a  per- 
son who  was  baptized  at  a  fountain  without  being  dipped, 
bathed,  or  immersed  in  its  waters.  He  neither  "  went  into 
it "  nor  "  came  out  of  it."  Had  he  gone  into  it,  and  dipped, 
or  bathed,  or  immersed  himself  in  its  waters,  he  luould  not 
have  been  baptized  by  it. 

Baptism,  at  this  fountain,  was  effected,  not  by  dipping  into 
it,  but  by  drinking  of  it.  Thus,  "  the  virtue  "  of  this  fountain 
was  developed.  Silenus,  the  special  friend  of  Bacchus, "  took 
possession  of"  the  drinker.  Brought  under  his  controlling 
influence,  the  condition  of  the  drinker  is  thoroughly  changed. 
He  is  baptized  by  the  Silenic  fount,  and  resembles  one  who 
is  made  "  heavy-headed  and  baptized  "  by  Bacchus.     These 


362  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

baptisms  of  Silenns  and  of  Bacchus  "  resemble  "  each  other 
as  closely  in  their  mode  and  nature,  as  do  the  "jolly  god" 
and  his  "  tipsy  follower  "  resemble  each  other  in  character. 
The  one  baptizes  at  the  banquetting-table,  the  other  at  the 
fountain.  But  whether  at  the  festive  board  or  at  the  bub- 
bling spring,  the  baptism  is  effected  by  drinking.  A  man 
dipped  into  a  wine  cask  does  not  receive  the  baptism  of 
Bacchus.  A  man  dipped  into  this  fabled  fountain  does  not 
receive  the  baptism  of  Silenus.  These  drunken  deities  do 
not,  after  such  mode,  "take  possession"  of  their  votaries. 
We  have  here  the  most  absolute  proof  of  a  baptism  "at  a 
fountain,"  without  any  dipping,  bathing,  or  immersing  in 
the  fountain.  Thus  we  estop  the  reasoning  which  makes  at  a 
fountain  equivalent  to  in  a  fountain.  Thus,  also,  we  arrest 
the  reasoning  which  makes  a  /oi««to/?i-baptism  necessarily  a 
dipping-ha^W&m. 

To  this  it  may  be  replied:  "Although  a  fountain  appears 
in  each  of  these  baptisms,  still,  the  cases  are  not  parallel. 
The  fountain  of  Silenus  w^as  imbued  with  a  peculiar  quality, 
the  controlling  influence  of  which  was  developed  only  by 
drinking;  but  the  fountain  of  Bethulia  had  no  such  quality, 
and  therefore  a  baptism  at  this  fountain  must  be  by  dipping 
into  its  waters."  Truth  and  error  mingle  together  in  this 
objection.  It  is  true  that  this  fountain  of  Classic  story  did 
possess  a  peculiar  quality  which  could  not  be  developed  by 
dipping,  (and  therefore  disproves  the  theory — "  no  dipping 
no  baptism,")  but  was  developed  by  drinking.  It  is  also 
true  that  the  fountain  of  Bethulia  had  no  such  quality  as  the 
fountain  of  Silenus.  And  it  is  farther  true,  that  we  cannot 
reason  conclusively  from  baptism  by  drinking  at  one  foun- 
tain, to  baptism  by  drinking  at  another  fountain.  For  every 
fountain  may  not  yield  up  its  virtue  through  the  same  chan- 
nel. But  it  is  error  to  conclude  because  the  fountain  of 
Bethulia  is  not  imbued  with  the  same,  "virtue"  as  that  of 
the  fountain  of  Silenus,  therefore  it  is  not  imbued  with  any 
"virtue"  at  all.  It  is  also  error  to  conclude,  because  the 
"virtue  "  of  this  fountain  is  not  developed  by  drinking,  there- 
fore it  must  be  developed  by  dipping. 


BAPTISM    BY    SPRING    AVATER.  363 

The  "virtue"  which  belonged  to  this  fountain  in  the  val- 
ley, was  a  specially  purifying  quality.  The  Jews  were  taught 
to  regard  living  water,  running  water,  spring  water,  as  hav- 
ing a  purifying  power  above  standing  or  dead  water.  The 
use  of  "  living  water  "  was  especially  enjoined  in  their  ritual 
purification.  '(Levit.  13:50-52;  Numb.  19:17,  &c.) 

Josephus  designates  this  "living  water,''  of  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Septuagint,  by  the  same  word  which  is  used  in  the 
passage  before  us — t^?  7:>yr^7? — spring  water.  [Ant.  Jud.^  iv,  4.)- 

While,  therefore,  this  fountain  had  no  intoxicating  quality, 
it  had,  in  the  estimation  of  all  Jews,  and  especially  of  this 
very  religious  lady,  an  Qm.mQwi\Y  purifying  qualitj'.  It  was 
to  secure  the  purifying  quality  of  this  spring  water  that 
Judith  "  went  down  into  the  valley  to  the  fountaiu."  If  the 
old  man,  at  the  fountain  of  Silenus,  was  baptized  by  drink- 
ing its  waters,  (their  "  virtue"  thus  taking  possession  of  him, 
and  thoroughly  changing  his  condition,)  then,  the  youthful 
Jewess  was  baptized  at  the  fountain  of  Bethulia,  by  using 
its  waters  in  any  such  way  as  would  develop  their  "  virtue" 
so  as  to  "  take  possession  "  of  her,  thoroughly  changing  her 
condition.  And  this  is  as  certain  as  the  mathematical  axiom, 
"things  that  are  equal  to  the  same  thing,  are  equal  to  each 
other."    Saratoga  Springs  yield  their  "  virtue"  to  drinking. 

Thus  Classic  baptism  utterly  repudiates  the  assumption, 
that  because  a  baptism  took  place  "  at  a  fountain,"  there 
must  have  been  a  dipping  in  the  fountain. 

But  Dr.  Carson  will  not  confide  the  cause  of  dipping  in 
the  fountain  to  such  unfriendly  auspices  as  i7:\  r'^q  -rfp^q.  "  I 
care  not  whether  she  was  immersed  in  the  fountaiu,  or  in  a 
cistern  or  bath  beside  it.  .  .  A¥as  it  not  usual  to  have  stone 
troughs  at  fountains  for  the  purpose  of  watering  cattle?" 

Alas!  is  the  theory  so  merciless,  that,  rather  than  spare 
this  Jewish  lady  a  dipping,  they  will  make  her  lie  down  in 
"  a  trough  for  watering  cattle?" 

It  is  hard  to  tell  which  to  admire  most,  "the  washing  of 
her  entire  person"  in  the  fountain  of  which  others  were  to 
drink,  or  the  purifying  of  herself  '•'•at  the  fountain"  in  a 
horse-trough ! 


364  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 


SHE    BAPTIZED   HERSELF. 

But  the  apology  for  all  this  extravagance,  is  "  the  word," 
'Hhewordr 

"It  cannot  be  known,  or  rationally  admitted,  that  she  was 
dipped,  but  on  the  testimonj'  of  this  word.  The  immersion 
is  proved,  not  by  the  preposition,  but  by  the  verb."  She 
was  baptized.  And  [iar.zi'^ut  means  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip, 
through  all  Greek  literature. 

As  the  friends  of  the  theory  confess  that  a  dipping  cannot 
be  got  out  of  this  transaction,  except  through  the  naked 
word  [na-Tilu)^  it  becomes  a  necessity  to  follow  them  into  this 
last  retreat. 

In  their  conclusion,  that  the  phrase — "she  baptized  her- 
self in  the  camp  at  the  fountain  of  water  " — can  give  them 
no  help  except  it  be  found  "in  the  word,"  I  think  all  will 
agree. 

The  hope  to  secure  a  dipping,  through  "  the  word,"  will 
be  found,  by  bitter  experience,  "  to  feed  on  ashes." 

Meaning  Obscure  to  the  Theory. 

It  is  obvious,  that  when  three  different  meanings  are  as- 
signed to  a  word  by  three  intelligent  men,  each  atJirming 
that  the  word  has  but  one  meaning,  the  meaning  of  that 
word  is,  probably,  but  obscurely  apprehended  by  any  of 
them. 

Drs.  Carson,  Fuller,  and  Conant,  all  declare  that  iSaKzi^u) 
has  but  one  meaning.  Each  one  chiims  to  know,  as  well  as 
he  knows  his  own  name,  what  that  meaning  is;  and  each, 
writing  with  declared  critical  accuracy  of  the  same  transac- 
tion in  which  that  word  appears,  gives  to  it  a  ditierent 
meaning. 

One  (Carson)  says,  it  means  to  dip ;  which  meaning  it  never 
has.  Another  (Fuller)  says,  it  means  to  bathe;  which  mean- 
ing it  never  has.  A  third  (Conant)  says,  it  means  to  im- 
merse; which  meaning  (carrying  with  it  the  idea  of  limita- 
tion of  time)  it  never  has.     There  must  be  some  radical  de- 


BAPTISM    BY    SPRING    WATER.  365 

feet,  when  critical  scholars,  starting  from  the  saine  premises, 
cannot  walk  together  in  the  same  path;  hut  one  turns  ofl"to 
the  right  hand,  another  to  the  left  hand,  and  a  third  thinks — 
in  medio  tiiiissime  ibis. 

It  is  not  pertinent  but  trifling  with  their  readers  to  sa}- ,  that 
although  none  of  these  words  expresses  the  meaning  of  the 
original  word,  yet  that  meaning  underlies  all  these  words; 
and  we  know  very  well  what  it  is,  and  it  is  very  easy  to  state 
it,  and  our  object  in  writing  ehiborate  treatises  is  to  translate 
it,  and  to  tell  all  about  it;  yet  we  will  not  say  what  it  is,  but 
we  will  state  a  dozen  words  which  it  is  not,  and  out  of  them 
you  may  find  the  meaning  as  well  as  you  can.  We  should 
be  chided  ''with  bated  breath,"  if  we  fail  to  find  out  the 
meaning,  seeing  that,  of  these  scholars,  one  says:  "I  have 
found  it,  it  is  di})."  And  a  second  cries,  "I  have  found  it, 
it  is  bathe."  And  a  third  responds,  "You  must  be  mistaken, 
I  have  found  it,  it  is  immerse."  Is  there  no  fourth  to  arise, 
(like  the  umpire  in  the  chameleon  dispute,)  who  shall  say, 
"  Good  friends,  you  all  are  wrong;  I  have  found  it,  and  have 
it  here,  and  if,  when  brought  forth,  you  do  not  find  it  jolunge, 
I  will  eat  it!"     Yes,  Stourdza  will  do  this. 

Condition,  not  Act,  Expressed. 

In  the  phraseology,  "she  baptized  herself,"  there  is  no 
form  of  act  expressed;  and  all  the  theorists  on  earth  .might 
spend  a  lifetime  in  guessing,  and  they  could  no  more  deter- 
mine the  question  as  to  the  act  performed,  than  they  could 
tell,  by  like  guessing,  what  kind  of  a  spade  Adam  used,  or 
what  kind  of  a  spinning-wheel  Eve  employed,  in  those  days 
when  "Adam  delved  and  Eve  span." 

Let  me  state  other  cases  of  baptism  expressed  by  similar 
phraseology:  "  Seeing  him  baptized."  "I  am  one  of  those 
yesterday  baptized."  "Whom  having  baptized."  "Whom 
it  were  better  to  baptize." 

In  all  of  these  cases  ^ar.ri'^u)  is  used  absolutely,  as  here  ex- 
pressed. If  the  word  is  capable  of  expounding  itaelf,  and 
making  known,  in  the  clearest  and  most  definite  manner,  a 
form  of  act,  then  there  will  be  no  difiiculty  for  any  one  in- 


366  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

itiatcd  into  tlie  mysteries  of  this  word,  to  tell  us  what  was 
the  one  mo(hil  act  performed  in  these  several  baptisms.  If 
the  wealth  of  all  the  Indies  were  offered  as  the  prize,  it  could 
not  be  done.  If  Webster's  last  quarto  should  be  taken,  and 
all  the  forms  of  act  between  A  and  Z  were  gone  over,  there 
would  be  no  approximation  to  the  truth.  For  there  is  no 
definite  act  expressed. 

In  the  first  case,  the  word  expresses  a  condition  of  mental 
bewilderment.  The  second  case,  expresses  a  condition  of 
drunkenness.  The  third,  expresses  a  condition  of  drugged 
stupor.    The  fourth,  is  the  condition  of  drowning  in  the  sea. 

Such  facts  of  usage  show  that  the  statement — "Judith 
baptized  herself" — might  mean,  she  brought  herself  into  a 
condition  of  bewilderment — or  drunkenness — or  stupor — or 
drowning. 

What  shall  be  thought,  then,  of  the  bold  promise  to  find 
out  by  this  naked  "word,"  a  definite  act  done? 

Is  relief  sought  by  assuming  the  position,  that  this  is  a 
case  of  literal  baptism,  and  such  baptisms  can  only  be  by 
one  definite  act  ? 

I  answer,  1.  It  is  nothing  hut  naked  assumption  to  pro- 
nounce this  a  case  of  literal,  physical  baptism.  To  appeal 
to  the  word,  is  to  go  back  on  a  track  which  has  just  been 
found  to  be  barren  of  all  friendly  results.  To  call  upon 
"fountain" — "  ^-V' — "av.'^Si;" — is  to  call  for  reeds  which  have 
already  been  broken  and  can  yield  no  support.  To  appeal  to 
facts  of  usage  in  such  cases,  is  to  attempt  to  prove  a  propo- 
sition by  a  result  which  is  itself  yet  to  be  proved.  Also,  it 
is  an  appeal  to  that  which  has  no  existence.  There  is  no 
evidence  of  Jewish  ritual  purilication  tiirough  all  the  period 
of  the  law — fifteen  hundred  years — by  dipping  the  entire  per- 
son in  water.  Judith  sought  purification ;  and  it  is  nothing 
but  an  absolute  assumption  to  say,  that  this  required  her 
person  to  be  put  under  the  water. 

I  answer,  2.  It  is  not  true,  by  the  showing  of  the  theorists, 
that  the  covering  of  the  entire  person  by  water  is  necessary 
to  a  physical  ba[)tism.  It  is  declared  that  Noah  was  literally 
and  physically  baptized  in  the  ark;  while  it  is  admitted  that 


BAPTISM   BY   SPRING   WATER.  367 

he  was  not  covered  by  the  water.  It  is  affirmed  that  the 
Israelites  were  literally  and  physically  baptized  at  the  Red 
Sea;  yet  it  is  admitted  that  they  were  not  covered  by  the 
water.  It  is  affirmed  that  Elijah's  altar  was  physically  bap- 
tized; yet  it  is  admitted  that  it  was  not  covered  by  the  water. 

How  does  it  happen,  that  under  all  these  diversities  there 
is  a  most  cast-iron  certainty  as  to  the  manner  of  Judith's  bap- 
tism? Would  not  "the  pouring  of  twelve  barrels  of  water" 
suffice  ? 

I  answer,  3.  A  physical  baptism  is  precluded  because  there 
is  no  case  of  similar  phraseology  in  physical  baptisms,  ex- 
cept in  such  as  involve  destruction  of  life.  Baptism  always 
expresses  unlimited  duration  in  its  continuance.  That  dura- 
tion never  terminates  by  the  force  of  "the  word,"  This  is 
a  vital,  nay,  the  most  vital,  and  universally^  present  element 
in  all  the  usage  of  the  word.  To  take  it  out  of  the  word, 
and  make  it  express  limitation  of  time,  would  be  giving  it 
a  secondary  meaning  with  a  vengeance.  This  idea  of  un- 
limited continuance,  (so  far  as  the  word  is  concerned,)  ap- 
pears in  every  case  of  secondary  usage,  and  grows  out  of 
that  grand  and  essential  characteristic  of  the  primary  use. 
Therefore, 

I  answer,  4.  This  was  a  case  belonging  to  secondary  bap- 
tism. Proof  of  this  is  found  (1.)  In  the  fact  that  spring  water 
can  purify,  ritually,  without  covering  the  body.  The  Classic 
and  the  Jewish  world,  alike,  are  filled  with  exemplifications 
of  this  statement.  Sprinkling  purifies,  ritually,  as  com- 
pletely as  pouring,  bathing,  or  any  other  use  of  water. 

Because  of  this  qualitj^,  (enabling  it  to  change  the  condi- 
tion of  the  person  on  whom  it  was  sprinkled,)  it  was  capable 
by  sprinkling,  of  baptizing.  Any  one  who  will  deny  this, 
"kicks  against  the  pricks"  of  all  Greek  literature. 

(2.)  Judith  came  to  the  fountain  for  purification.  She 
came  to  be  baptized  by  the  ritually  purifjnng  power  of  spring 
water.  That  is  to  say,  she  came  to  have  her  present  condi- 
tion of  ceremonial  impurity  changed  to  one  of  thorough 
ceremonial  purity.  Does  not  this  state  the  facts  of  the  case 
in  the  fullest  and  most  definite  manner  ?     Now  remember 


368  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

that  when  the  phrase — "she  came  to  be  baptized  by  the 
•ritually  purifying  power  of  spring  water,"  is  abbreviated  into 
the  phrase — "she  came  to  be  baptized" — the  whole  force  of 
the  omitted  words  become  merged  in  the  one  word  "bap- 
tized;" and  that  word  by  such  addition,  by  the  Laws  of  hm- 
guage,  now  expresses  the  idea  of  purification  in  its  repre- 
sentative character. 

(3.)  This  change  of  condition,  the  baptism  effected  by  the 
spring  water,  was  not  evanescent.  She  went  up  from  the 
fountain  purified.  She  prayed  to  God  for  imperilled  Israel, 
purified.     She  entered  into  her  tent,  purified. 

Here  is  that  vital  and  universally  present  feature  of  bap- 
tism— a  continuance  of  condition  without  any  self-limitation 
of  that  continuance. 

There  is  no  such  feature  in  the  dipping,  or  the  cov^ering 
of  "the  theory;"  and  therefore  it  is  an  error.  A  dipping 
into  water  neither  is  nor  can  be  a  baptism. 

Israel  "baptized  into  Moses"  did  not  emerge  from  their 
baptism  for  the  space  of  forty  years.  Israel  "  baptized  into 
Joshua"  did  not  emerge  from  their  baptism  during  "all  the 
days  of  his  life."  Judith  baptized  into  ceremonial  purity  at 
the  fountain  of  Bethulia,  did  not  emerge  from  her  baptism 
until  taken  out  of  it  by  some  defiling  influence. 

This  is  the  teaching  of  the  Classics.  There  is  no  limit 
of  time  when  the  lost  ship  shall  emerge  from  its  baptism, 
or  when  the  drunken  man,  or  the  bewildered  man,  or  the 
opiately  stupefied  man  shall  emerge  from  his  baptism. 

Secondary  Meaninc). 

Dr.  Carson  makes  this  complaint:  "All  my  opponents 
endeavor  to  take  advantage  of  my  candor  in  proving  the 
secondary  meaning  of  /Sas-rw,  taking  it  for  granted  that  this 
equally  applies  to  /Ja-rtTw.  Lot  /Ja-rt'^w  show  as  good  evidence 
of  a  secondary  meaning,  as  I  have  shown  on  the  part  of /3a7rr«>, 
and  I  will  without  controversy  admit  the  fact." 

If  this  complaint  is  well  grounded,  Methuselah  must  have 
been  young  in  years  compared  with  Dr.  Carson.  Tlie  proof 
of  a  secondary  meaning  to  ^Janrw  has  been  in  existence  for 


BAPTISM    BY   SPRING    WATER.  369 

some  centuries  beyond  a  tlionsnncl  3'ears.  It  only  remained 
for  Dr.  C.'s  friends  to  profit  by  his  "candor"  in  accepting 
tlie  meaning  urged  by  his  opponents. 

As  to  the  evidence  of  a  secondary  meaning  to  ISanri^w,  (the 
primary  meaning  being,  the  change  of  the  condition  of  an 
object  by  its  intnsposition  within  a  closely  investing  medium 
without  limitation  of  time,  the  secondary  meaning  being, 
the  thorough  change  of  condition,  without  limitation  of  time, 
of  an  object  by  some  controlling  influence,  without  intuspo- 
sition,)  a  limited  portion  of  this  evidence  may  be  found  in 
the  following  facts : 

1.  The  condition  of  heated  iron  is  represented  as  changed 
(baptized)  into  a  condition  of  coldness  bi/  water.  Water  is, 
here,  represented  as  an  agency  efiecting  this  change  of  con- 
dition by  its  quality  of  coldness.  If  it  should  be  objected, 
"  This  change  might  be  efliected  by  the  immersion  of  the 
hot  iron  in  cold  water."  I  grant  it;  but  reply,  this  is  not 
what  is  said.  And  demand  in  turn  the  admission,  that  the 
quality  of  coldness  in  water  is  capable  of  controlling  and 
changing  thoroughly  the  condition  of  hot  iron  without  any 
immersion. 

2.  It  is  said,  that  the  condition  of  a  sober  man  is  changed 
(baptized)  into  the  condition  of  a  drunken  man  by  means  of 
wine-drinking.  It  cannot  be  objected,  in  this  case,  that  the 
same  change  of  condition  may  be  effected  by  the  immersion 
of  a  man  in  a  hogshead  of  wine;  for  it  is  obviously  and  con- 
fessedly untrue.  Such  an  immersion  would  produce  a  bap- 
tism, but  as  different  from  the  other  as  light  from  dark- 
ness, or  as  life  from  death.  It  is  most  irrational,  therefore, 
to  say  that  these  baptisms  have  any  relation,  in  kind,  to  each 
other.  It  follows,  consequentlv,  by  necessity,  that  there  is  a 
baptism  in  which  no  intnsposition  exists  in  fact  or  by  imagi- 
nation. 

3.  It  is  said,  that  a  man  who  drinks  of  the  fountain  of 
Silenus  is  like  to  a  "baptized"  man.  But  there  is  no  con- 
ceivable resemblance  between  such  a  one  and  an  immersed 
man.  There  is  a  resemblance  to  a  drunken  man.  "  Bap- 
tized," therefore,  is  here  employed  to  denote,  directly,  a 

24 


370  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

drunken  condition.     The  change  of  condition,  in  one  case, 
is  likened  to  the  change  of  condition,  in  the  other  case.     In 
neither  case  is  there  any  possibility  of  immersion. 
Such  proof  of  a  secondary  meaning  is  absolute. 

4.  It  is  said,  that  Bacchus  is  baptized  by  water  poured  into 
wine.  It  is  impossible  that  wine  should  be  immersed  by 
water  poured  into  it.  For  the  same  reason  it  is  impossible 
that  the  word,  here,  can  mean  "  immersed."  The  condition 
of  wine  is  thoroughly  changed  by  water  poured  into  it,  and 
this  condition,  (without  immersion,)  is  expressed  by  /Ja-rt'Cw. 
It  has,  therefore,  a  secondary  meaning. 

5.  Josephus  says,  a  man  ceremonially  impure  is  baptized 
by  heifer-ashes  sprinkled  upon  him.  It  is  impossible  that 
he  should  be  immersed  by  these  ashes.  The  word,  there- 
fore, cannot  possibly  mean,  here,  "  immersed."  But  these 
ashes  do,  by  their  purifying  quality,  thoroughly  change  the 
condition  of  those  upon  whom  they  are  sprinkled.  They 
are  brought  out  of  a  condition  of  ceremonial  impurity  into 
a  condition  of  complete  ceremonial  purity.  This  change  of 
condition  is  expressed  by  /Jarr-jTw;  and  being  without  iutus- 
position  it  has  passed  to  a  secondary  meaning. 

6.  Origen  says,  the  altar,  with  its  sacrifice,  was  baptized 
by  water  poured  upon  it.  The  altar  and  holocaust  were  not 
immersed  in  water.  The  Greek  word,  therefore,  does  not, 
here,  mean  "  immersed."  The  condition  of  the  altar  and 
sacrifice  was  thoroughly  changed.  They  passed  out  of  a 
condition  of  ceremonial  impurity  into  a  condition  of  cere- 
monial purity.  This  change  of  condition  is  expressed  by 
fianTi%(u;  and  being  without  intusposition  exhibits,  again,  its 
secondary  meaning. 

These  instances  of  usage  representative  of  many  others, 
Classic,  Jewish,  and  Patristic,  prove  a  secondary  meaning 
for  fiar.ri'^u},  as  Unanswerably  as  the  "  candor"  of  Dr.  Carson 
has  succeeded  in  showing,  to  his  unbelieving  friends,  to  be- 
long to  /Jorrw. 

The  principle  of  development,  in  the  two  cases,  is  not 
merely  the  same,  but  the  form  of  development  is  almost 
identical. 


BAPTISM    BY   SPRING    WATER.  371 

The  object  of  /Sarrrw  is  dipped  into  fluids  colorless  or  col- 
ored. 

Ill  the  former  case  the  secondary  meaning  which  would 
result  must  be  a  state  of  icetness.  This  is  exemplilied  in  the 
wet  state  of  Nebuchadnezzar  produced  by  the  night-dew. 
But  to  this  secondary  meaning  the  "  candor"  of  Dr.  C.  did 
not  attain.  But  certain  objects  dipped  into  colored  liquids 
became,  thereby,  colored.  Hence  the  word  which  caused  the 
coloring  by  its  act  of  dipping,  was  applied  to  the  coloring 
of  objects  when  the  act  of  dipping  was  not  present.  Thus 
arose  the  secondary  meaning  to  dye,  without  dipping. 

The  object  of  /Sarrrj'^w  is  brought  into  a  condition  of  in- 
tusposition  within  a  fluid  element,  not  by  the  transient  act 
of  dipping,  but  by  any  competent  act,  and  never  removing 
its  object  out  of  this  new  condition  into  which  it  has  been 
introduced.  Some  objects  (rocks  and  other  impenetrable 
masses)  are  not  aftected  by  this  change  of  condition.  Other 
objects,  (human  beings,  penetrable  and  soluble  substances,) 
are  powerfully  aftected,  according  to  their  nature,  and  the 
characteristics! of  the  investing  element.  From  the  effects 
thus  produced,  by  intusposition,  on  this  class  of  objects,  pro- 
ceeds that  secondary  meaning  of /5a-T£T<w,  which  is  expressive 
of  controlling  influence,  without  intusposition  as  the  indu- 
cing cause.  The  word,  out  of  whose  demand  the  controlling 
influence  originally  proceeded,  is  still  retained  to  express 
the  condition  resultant  from  influence  when  exerted  under 
modes  of  development  other  than  that  with  which  it  was 
originally  associated. 

If  the  friends  of  the  theory  seek  to  take  the  life  of  this 
word  in  secondary  development,  by  the  aid  of  monster  beau- 
ties in  poesy  and  rhetoric,  the  answer  is:  The  same  troop  of 
"beauties  "  will  as  readily  murder  /5«~w,  second,  or  any  other 
word  that  has  passed  to  a  secondary  meaning. 

What  proves  too  much,  proves  nothing. 

The  condition  of  Judith  was  changed  from  that  of  cere- 
monial impurity  to  one  of  ceremonial  purity,  by  the  influ- 
ence of  "living  water;"  and  this  change,  without  intusposi- 


372  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

tion,  fiuTTTiXu)  is  competent,  and  is,  in  fact,  used  to  express. 
The  circumstances  and  the  phraseology  of  tlie  statement 
unite  to  dechire  that  the  word  is  so  used  here. 

To  enforce  this  conchision  against  the  dogmatic  assertion 
of  Dr.  Carson  and  friends,  I  will, adduce  an  exemplification 
of  the  unreliability  of  his  judgment  as  to  words,  in  attribut- 
ing to  them  one  unswerving  meaning. 

Ihptxku'^u). 

There  was  a  washing  of  Judith  previous  and  preparatory 
to  her  going  to  the  camp  of  Ilolofernes.  This  washing  is 
expressed  by  the  word  r^epukv^w.  It  is  the  same  word  used 
to  express  the  washing  of  Tobias  at  the  river  Tigris:  "  And 
when  the  young  man  went  down  (to  the  river)  {jTzfj'.yJjj<7U(7eacj 
to  wash  himself""  (Tobit  6:  2.) 

This  passage  having  been  quoted  by  President  Beecher, 
Dr.  Carson  thus  comments  (p.  445):  "But  Mr.  B.'s  criticism 
on  the  Greek  word  xXu%u}^  here  emplo3'ed  for  washing,  is  en- 
tirely false.  He  expounds  the  word  as  signif^'ing  a  washing 
all  round,  just  as  a  man  stands  in  a  stream  and  throws  the 
water  all  over  his  body,  and  washes  himself  by  friction. 
Mr.  B.  criticizes  from  imagination,  not  from  a  knowledge  of 
the  language.  Has  he  justified  his  criticism  by  a  single  ex- 
ample? He  seems  better  acquainted  with  the  different  cir- 
cumstances in  the  operation  of  bathing,  than  with  the  occur- 
rences of  the  word  on  which  he  undertakes  to  criticize.  The 
simple  word  signifies  to  deluge,  to  overwhelm,  to  inundate, 
to  flow  over  anything,  and  is  generally  applied  to  water  flow- 
ing or  rolling  in  a  horizontal  manner.  .  .  .  There  is  no  fric- 
tion nor  hand  washing  in  this  word.  It  performs  its  purpose 
by  running  over,  either  gently  or  with  violence.  The  word 
does  not  signify  that  the  young  man,  in  bathing,  splashed 
about  like  a  duck,  or  rubbed  himself  like  a  collier,  but  that 
he  threw  himself  into  the  river  that  the  stream  might  flow 
over  him.  He  was  then  baptized,  indeed,  and  much  more 
than  baptized." 

This  criticism  is  in  the  usual  Carsonic  style:  supercilious 


BAPTISM    BY   SPRING    WATER.  378 

toward  the  utterances  of  others;  self-complacent  in  his  own, 
as  the  embodiment  of  absolute  truth. 

In  reply,  Dr.  Beecher  refers,  among  other  quotations,  to 
the  washing  of  a  child — v8ari  TtepuXu'^eiv  (Aristotle);  and  the 
wetting  by  spray — afpu)  7zepuXu!^6/ievov.  (Lucian.)  Such  pas- 
sages do  effectually  take  the  underpinning  from  beneath  the 
claims  of  Dr.  C.  to  critical  accuracy. 

No  less  so  does  this  washing  of  Judith,  related  10  :  2: 
"She  rose  and  went  dow^n  "  (not  into  the  river  or  fountain, 
but)  "into  the  house,  and  washed  her  body  all  around  with 
water — nepuxXuffuTo  TO  a&ixa  udazt — and  anointed  herself  with 
precious  ointment." 

Now,  what  becomes,  in  the  presence  of  this  statement,  of 
the  dictum,  that  it  is  "  entirely  false  "  to  expound  the  word 
as  meanting  a  "washing  all  around?"  What  is  the  worth 
of  the  declaration,  "the  word  signifies  that  he  threw  him- 
self into  the  river,  that  the  stream  might  flow  over  him  ?" 
Does  this  same  word,  also,  signify  that  Judith,  in  her  house, 
"  threw  herself  into  the  river,  that  the  water  might  flow  over 
her?"  Or,  does  the  word  "  signify  "  that  the  water  "  deluged, 
overwhelmed,  inundated,  flowed  or  rolled  over  her  in  a  hori- 
zontal manner?"  Does  it  "signify  "  that  Judith  was  in  the 
water  {udan,  with  water)  at  all?  "Most  assuredly;  ignorance 
itself  should  know  that  the  word  will  supply  the  water." 
Well,  when  the  word  cries  out,  under  the  tutorage  of  Dr.  C, 
for  water  to  deluge  and  roll  over  the  lady  Judith,  what  is  the 
response  from  the  Bethulians?  Here  it  is:  "All  the  vessels 
of  water  fail  all  the  inhabitants  of  Bethulia.  And  the  cis- 
terns are  emptied;  and  we  have  not  water  to  drink  our  fill 
for  one  day;  for  we  give  drink  by  measure.  Therefore  our 
young  children  are  out  of  heart,  and  our  women  and  young 
men  faint  for  thirst,  and  fall  down  in  the  streets  of  the  city 
and  by  the  passages  of  the  gates,  and  there  is  no  longer  any 
strength  in  them.  And  all  the  people  assemble,  both  young 
men  and  women  and  children,  and  cry  with  a  loud  voice, 
and  say,  'Deliver  the  whole  city  for  a  spoil  to  Ilolofernes 
and  to  all  his  army.  For  it  is  better  for  us  to  be  made  a 
spoil  unto  them,  than  to  die  for  thirst.'" 


374  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

And,  in  the  midst  of  this  wailing  from  parched  lips  and 
tongues  cleaving  to  the  roofs  of  their  mouths,  Dr.  C.  would 
have  us  believe,  that  this  Jewess  "  throws  herself  into  a  water- 
bath,  that  the  water  may  flow  horizontally  over  her!" 

The  Jew  Apelles  may  believe  this;  the  Bethulian  Jew 
will  not. 

Dr.  Carson  may  "  make  /Sa-rt'Cw  find  water  in  a  desert," 
but  he  cannot  make  -ntpukoXu)  find  "a  deluge,  and  an  inunda- 
tion, and  an  overwhelming,  and  a  flowing  over"  of  water  in 
Bethulia,  whose  people  are  dying  of  thirst. 

Judith  must  be  left  quietly  in  her  house,  "to  wash  her 
body  all  around  with  water,"  using  so  much  as  she  may  be 
able  to  get,  notwithstanding  the  fiiith  of  Carson  should  de- 
clare all  such  action,  under  -s.pv/lb'^ai^  to  be  "  entirely  false." 

WASHING   FOR    PRAYER. 

This  washing  having  been  stained  by  the  defilements  of 
the  idolatrous  camp,  Judith  goes  to  renew  her  purification 
at  the  fountain  of  Bethulia.  At  her  previous  washing,  in 
her  house,  we  are  expressly  told,  that  "she  pulled  off  the  sack- 
cloth which  she  had  on,  and  ^9?/<  off  the  garments  of  her 
widowhood,  and  washed,  .  .  .  and  pw^  on  the  garments  of 
gladness." 

Here  is  the  whole  process  of  disrobing  and  enrobing. 
Where  is  all  this,  or  anything  like  this,  at  the  theory  dip- 
pirig,  when  "she  baptized,  in  the  camp,  at  the  fountain?" 

Homer  makes  Telemachus  "wash  his  hands,  of  the  hoary 
sea,  before  prayer  to  Minerva."  Hesiod  inculcates  "  the 
washing  of  hands,  in  pure  water,  before  prayer."  Ovid 
teaches  "the  washing  of  hands,  and  the  sprinkling  of  the 
head  with  water,  before  prayer."  The  Jewish  priesthood 
washed  their  hands  and  feet  before  engaging  in  religious 
worship.  Aristeas  says:  "It  is  customary  for  all  Jews  to 
wash  their  hands  with  sea-water,  when  they  would  pray  to 
God."  riiilo  declares,  "It  is  the  custom  of  nearly  all  others 
to  sprinkle  themselves  for  purification  with  pure  water,  many 
with  that  of  the  sea,  some  with  that  of  rivers,  and  some  with 


BAPTISM   BY   SPRING   WATER.  375 

that  which,  in  vessels,  they  have  drawn  up  from  wells."  But 
when  this  Jewish  heroine  comes  to  the  running  water  to  bap- 
tize (purify)  herself  for  prayer,  she  finds  encamped  there  a 
troop,  under  the  bold  leadership  of  "the  theory,"  who  de- 
fend the  passage,  and  refuse  to  recognize  any  permit  from 
Iloloferues,  or  from  "an  angel  from  heaven,"  except  the 
shibboleth — "no  dipping  no  baptism" — be  first  accepted, 
and  the  lady  be  pledged  "to  wash  her  entire  person  in  the 
fountain,"  (or,  at  her  option,  purify  (?)  herself  in  the  horse- 
trough,)  the  garrison  of  heathen  soldiery  being  witnesses  to 
the  faithful  performance  of  the  requirement ! 

The  theory  is  more  pitiless  than  the  Assyrian  Ilolofernes. 

And,  now,  having  gone  through,  in  detail,  the  features  of 
this  last  case  of  baptism  in  the  Apocryphal  writings  of  the 
Jews,  it  might  be  well  asked,  (if  tlie  theory  were  not  full  of 
castles  in  the  air,)  Could  anything  be  more  foundatiouless 
than  the  attempt  to  dip  this  fair  Jewess,  nightly,  in  the 
camp,  at  a  fountain  surrounded  by  its  special  garrison  of 
soldiers  ? 

But,  where  interpretation  is  so  generally  phenomenal,  any 
new  case  ceases  to  awaken  surprise. 

The  Apocryphal  writers  fully  agree  with  the  interpreters 
of  the  Canonical  Scriptures  as  to  the  usage  of  BAIITIZQ. 


NEW    TESTAMENT. 


(377) 


JEWISH    BAPTISMS. 


It  was  my  purpose  to  have  introduced,  here,  all  the  cases 
of  Judaic  baptism  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament;  but 
have  concluded  to  defer  those  practised  during  John's  min- 
istry until  his  baptism  shall  be  under  consideration. 

Paul  interprets  the  Jewish  ordinances,  and  calls  them 
"baptisms,"  just  as  do  the  Patrists,  without  the  slightest  re- 
gard to  any  modal  act  of  dipping  into  or  covering  over  with 
water,  or  anything  else. 

An  illustration  of  this  statement  will  now  engage  our  at- 
tention. And  although  more  than  a  century  has  elapsed 
since  the  record  of  Judith's  baptism,  we  will  find  the  usage 
of  the  Greek  word  unchanged. 

"VAEIOUS  KINDS  OF  BAPTIZINGS." 

Hebrews  9  :  9,  10. 

"  Which  was  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present,  in  which  were 
offered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  that  could  not  make  him  that 
did  the  service  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience; 

"Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and  diverse  baptiz- 
ings;  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of 
reformation." 

Movov  i-)  ISpd>;xa<Tt  xat  no/xaffc,  xai  8ta(p6pot,q  [iaTZTKriiolq,  Sixaiwixaza 
aapxoq. 

Diverse  Baptisms. 
After  having  examined  the  endless  variety  presented  in 
the  baptisms  passed  in  review  we  are  well  prepared  to  hear 
the  inspired  Apostle  speak  of  "  various  kinds  of  baptizings." 
But  such  language  must  have  a  painful  and  ominous  sound 
to  the  ear  of  the  theory.  It  compels  it,  once  again,  to  as- 
sume an  apologetic  attitude.  We  have  been  chidden  for 
speaking  of  the  mode  of  baptizing.     "  To  speak  of  the  mode 

(379) 


380  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

of  baptizing  was  as  absurd  as  to  speak  of  tbe  mode  of  dip- 
ping. Tbe  word  expressed  mode  and  nothing  but  mode." 
The  theory,  then,  has  the  embarrassing  task  to  explain  how 
it  happens  that  Paul  speaks  of  "diversity"  in  that  which  is 
nothing  but  mode,  and  the  most  wonderful  example  of  uni- 
formity in  mode  which  the  history  of  language  presents.  I 
do  not  say  that  the  theory  cannot  show,  that  what  the  Apostle 
says  is  diverse,  and  what  it  says  is  uniform,  agree  perfectly 
together.  After  having  witnessed  demonstrations  that  bap- 
tism by  jyowing  means  baptism  by  dipping,  I  am  quite  pre- 
pared to  listen  to  another  demonstration  proving  that  dicersily 
is  uniformity. 


Diversity  of  baptisms  was  a  truth  quite  familiar  to  Patristic 
writers. 

Hilary,  i,  519,  under  the  heading  "Baptismata  sunt  di- 
versa,"  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  John,  the  second  baptism 
of  the  Saviour  [alio  baptismo  baplizari),  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  baptism  of  fire,  of  judgment,  and  the  baptism  of 
martyrdom.  These  baptisms  arc  all  diverse  in  manner  and 
matter. 

Ambrose,  iii,  424:  "Multa  sunt  genera  baptismatum," 
(1248,)  "  plurima  baptismatum  genera  prsemissa  sunt." 
Among  these  "many,  very  many  kinds  of  baptisms,"  he 
enumerates  as  "one  kind,  the  healing  of  the  leprosy  of 
Naaman ;  another  kind  was  the  purging  of  the  world  by 
the  deluge;  a  third  kind,  when  our  fathers  w^ere  baptized 
in  the  Ivcd  Sea;  a  fourth  kind,  in  the  pool  (Bethesda), 
when  the  water  was  troubled ;  a  fifth  kind  was  the  ascent 
of  the  axe  out  of  the  water;  and  a  sixth  kind  was  the  casting 
wood  into  the  fountain  and  the  sweetening  of  the  waters." 

The  diverse  character  of  these  baptisms  is  obvious  at  a 
glance. 

Basil,  ii,  G32,  cd.  Vcn. :  "John  the  Baptist  says,  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  into  repentance,  but  he  shall  baptize 
you  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  many  such  things.  But  as  much 
as  the  Holy  Spirit  differs  from  water  so  much,  evidently,  also 


DIVERSE    BAPTISiMS.  381 

he  who  baptizes  by  the  Holy  Spirit  excels  him  who  baptizes 
with  water,  and  the  baptism  itself." 

The  Apostle  uses  the  same  word  to  point  out  the  differ- 
ences among  Jewish  baptisms,  as  Basil  uses  to  indicate  the 
difference  between  water  baptism  and  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  difference  between  these  latter  baptisms  cannot 
be  a  difference  in  the  dipping  or  the  covering;  for  in  bap- 
tism by  the  Spirit  there  is  neither  dipping  nor  covering. 
Nor  can  it  be  a  difference  as  to  the  objects  baptized — "cups, 
pots,  skins" — for  the  objects  are  the  same,  human  beings. 

III,  1532:  "I  think  that  we  should  learn,  in  brief,  the 
diversity  between  the  baptism  of  Moses  and  that  of  John — 

zr^v  8ia<p()f)dv  rou  xara  3Iuju/7ia  jSa-rtfTfiaroq  ~p6q  ro  too  ^ Iwdwou.^'      It  is 

obvious  that  if  a  baptism  begins  and  ends  with  a  modal  act 
or  covering,  there  can  be  no  difference  between  such  act  or 
covering  under  the  direction  of  Aloses  or  of  John.  The  ex- 
position of  these  baptisms,  therefore,  cannot  be  found  in  any 
such  direction. 

IV,  125  :  "Why  then  compare  baptisms  which  have  noth- 
ing in  common  but  the  name,  while  the  difference  of  things — 
ij  dk  Tww  rpay/xd-w)'  dcayopd  roffauzrj — is  as  great  as  between  a  dream 
and  the  truth,  or  a  shadow  and  the  substance?" 

How  diverse  was  the  view  of  Basil  of  baptism  from  that 
of  the  theorists!  He  declares  that  between  Jewish  and 
Christian  baptism  there  is  nothing  in  common  but  a  name; 
while  they  labor,  in  ways  most  extravagant,  to  show  the 
most  perfect  uniformity. 

Chrysostom,  ii,  366 :  "  John  exhorted  the  Jews  not  to  cher- 
ish hopes  of  salvation  through  diverse  baptisms  and  purifi- 
cations of  waters, — <>oy.  iv  fian-C(T;j.<Hg  dca^opocq  xai  xaOaprnni;  uddrwu." 

The  distinction  made  by  Chrysostom  between  "diverse 
baptisms"  and  "purifications  of  water"  leads  directly  to  the 
conclusion,  that  among  the  diversities  of  baptisms  there 
were  some  not  effected  by  water.  And  this  is  true,  for  some 
baptisms  were  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  of  heifer-aslies,  &c. 

Justin  Martyr  (Op.  Sp.),  1340:  "The  law  released  from 
blame,  daily,  transgressors,  by  certain  sprinklings,  and  sac- 
rifices of  animals,  and  diverse  kinds  of  baptisms  —  dta^opajq 


382  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

iSaTrnff/mrvjn — but  gracc  grants  only  one  baptism."  It  is  prob- 
able tliat  the  writer  intended  to  include  the  "sprinklings" 
and  "  the  sacrifices  "  among  the  diversities  of  baptism.  This 
is  the  understanding  of  Matthies  (Baptismatis  Expositio,  p. 
17):  "  Veruni  enim  vero  apud  Juda'os  tota  vocis,"  baptizare 
seu  baptismus  "  potestas  istis  purgandi  ritibus  continetur 
iisque  prorsus  concluditur,  ita  ut  quajvis  lustrationes  dici 
possint  baptismi  —  But  truly  among  the  Jews  the  whole 
force  of  the  word  baptize  or  baptism  is  thoroughly  expressed 
by  those  rites  of  purification,  so  that  any  lustrations  what- 
ever may  be  called  baptisms." 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  ii,  353:  "Come  let  us  inquire  some- 
what concerning  the  diiSerences  of  baptisms, — T:efj\  Sca^opdi; 
iSa-riaiidrwv — that  we  may  go  hence  purified.  Moses  baptized, 
but  with  water,  and  previously  with  the  cloud  and  sea.  And 
John  baptized,  but  not  Judaically,  nor  yet  with  water  only, 
but,  also,  into  repentance;  but  not  wholly  spiritually,  for  he 
does  not  add,  '  with  the  Spirit.'  And  Jesus  baptizes,  but 
with  the  Spirit.  And  this  is  perfect.  .  .  .  I  know  a  fourth 
kind  of  baptism,  that  which  is  by  martyrdom  and  blood, 
with  which  Christ  himself  was  baptized.  And  I  know  yet 
a  fifth,  the  baptism  of  tears, — washing — h>bwv — nightlj',  his 
bed  with  tears.  .  .  .  Perhaps,  then,  they  will  be  baptized 
with  fire — -w  ~oin — harder  to  bear  and  longer  in  duration, 
the  final  baptism." 

If  any  value  is  to  be  attached  to  the  judgment  of  these 
Greek  writers  as  to  the  meaning  of  i?a7rr£'>,  in  such  relations, 
it  is  a  point  made  out,  that  so  far  from  a  dipping  or  a  water 
covering  constituting  the  alpjha  and  the  omerja,  neither  of 
these  things  entered  into  the  conception  of  the  word  at  all 
in  such  use.  Baptism  was  a  conception  myriad-sided,  pre- 
senting niultiplicd  diversities  as  to  nature,  and  no  less  mul- 
tiplied diversities  in  the  modes  of  accomplishment.  Amid 
these  diversities  there  is  this  one  element,  which  is  always 
to  be  found, — a  thoroiujh  change  of  condition.  The  nature  of 
the  condition  may  vary  endlessly,  as  may  the  cause  inducing 
it  and  the  mode  of  its  operation;  but,  still,  couditiou  as  a 
present  element  is  a  sine  qua  non. 


DIVERSE    BAPTISMS.  383 

The  use  of^oou),  by  Gregory,  reminds  us  of  the  statement  by 
Dr.  Carson,  that  this  word  is  limited  in  use  to  animal  bodies, 
and  requires  that  its  object  shall  be  covered  with  water. 
Neither  of  these  features  is  present  in  the  case  related.  The 
"bed"  is  not  an  animal  body,  nor  is  the  bed  "washed"  by 
being  "covered  over"  with  tears.  It  is  wholly  insufficient 
to  talk  about  hyperbole.  It  is  quite  enough  of  extravagance 
to  imagine  the  bed  to  be  superficially  wet  all  over  with  tears. 
To  be  asked  to  imagine  the  bed  to  be  enveloped  in  a  watery 
covering  of  tears  is  insufierable.  Nor  does  the  literal  use 
of  the  word  justify  any  such  extravagant  figure.  A  baptism 
is  sought  to  be  got  out  of  every  case  of  "  washing."  Water 
may  be  found  to  cover  "  the  couches ;  "  but  tears  will  not  be 
found  in  the  actual  world,  or  in  the  world  of  imagination,  to 
immerse  this  bed.  But  it  is  no  greater  blunder  to  seek  a 
solution  of  this  "  tears  baptism  "  in  a  hyperbolic  immersion 
of  this  bed,  than  to  seek  a  solution  of  the  "altar  baptism" 
in  a  hyperbolic  immersion  of  the  bullock,  wood,  and  stones. 
Dr.  Fuller  says,  Origen,  "  one  of  the  most  impassionate  of 
men,"  figuratively  calls  the  effect  of  pouring  the  water,  a 
baptism. 

He  defends  the  interpretation  by  quoting  from  Hamlet : 

"What  would  he  do, 
Had  he  the  motive  and  the  cue  for  passion 
That  I  have?     He  would  drown  the  stage  with  tears." 

"Whether  Gregory  was  "  one  of  the  most  impassionate  of 
men"  I  do  not  know;  but  if  Dr.  Fuller  will  take  the  altar 
poured  upon,  the  bed  washed,  and  the  penitent  sinner  sprin- 
kled with  tear-drops,  as  honestly  baptized,  we  shall  certainly 
be  making  progress. 

However,  when  an  author  writes  a  book  entitled  ^Hhe  act 
of  baptism,"  and  opens  it  with  the  portentous  words,  "  Saved 
or  Damned,"  and  then  expounds  a  baptism  in  which  "the 
act "  is  left  out,  it  reminds  one  of  the  adage  associated  with 
the  play  which  the  Doctor  has  quoted:  "Hamlet,  with  the 
part  of  Hamlet  left  out." 


384      •  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

CLASSICS. 

The  Patrists,  in  their  view  of  diverse  baptisms,  differ,  in  no 
respect,  from  tlie  Classics.  They  say  that  Mosaic,  Johannic, 
and  Christian  baptisms,  are  diverse,  on  the  ground  that  the 
agencies  inducing  them  are  of  diverse  "  power,"  and  there- 
fore induce  diverse  conditions.  The  Classic  writers  teach 
us  precisely  the  same  truth  in  connection  with  wine,  opiates, 
and  cold  water.  The  power  of  these  agencies  is  diverse,  and 
they  induce  diverse  conditions — baptisms.  A  condition  of 
intoxication,  a  condition  of  stupefaction,  and  a  condition  of 
coldness,  are  all  diverse  conditions.  And  these  diverse  con- 
ditions the  Classics  call  baptisms,  "diverse  baptisms." 

The  manner  of  using  these  agencies  to  effect  these  bap- 
tisms, was  endlessly  diverse;  yet  this  fact  is  not  singled  out 
for  discussion  or  explanation,  because  it  does  not  appear  to 
have  entered  into  the  mind  of  Classic  or  Patristic  writers,  as 
needing  either  discussion  or  explanation.  The  only  vital  idea 
in  a  baptism,  is  thorough  change  of  condition.  This  was  effected, 
primarily,  by  intusposition  within  a  closely  investing  medium. 
The  manner  in  which  such  intusposition  was  accomplished, 
was  a  thing  wholly  extraneous.  This  change  of  condition  was 
effected,  secondarily,  without  intusposition,  by  any  agency 
competent  to  the  end. 

And  as  every  Classic  and  Patristic  writer  knew,  that  to 
raise  the  question,  hoio  intusposition,  primary,  was  effected, 
was  to  raise  a  question  wholly  foreign  to  the  case;  so,  also, 
they  knew  that  there  was  no  place  for  the  quo  moclo  of  bap- 
tism, secondary.  Drinking  wine,  eating  an  opiate,  pouring 
cold  water,  sprinkling  sacrificial  blood,  had  the  same  equal 
and  absolute  right  to  appear  for  duty  on  such  occasions. 
They,  therefore,  do  not  discuss  any  such  diversities.  They 
are  recognized  and  spoken  of  as  accidents,  which  are  indif- 
ferently present  or  absent.  The  word  baptism  has  nothing 
to  do  with  modes  of  action.  But  baptism  has  to  do,  first 
and  last,  with  condition.  And  the  conditions  to  which  it  is 
applied  are  so  diverse,  and  so  alien  from  each  other,  that,  as 
Basil  says,  "they  have  nothing  in  common  but  the  name." 


DIVERSE   BAPTISMS.  38d 

These  diverse  baptisms  (conclitions  effected  by  agencies 
greatly  diverse  in  their  powers,  and  applied  in  modes  un- 
limited in  their  diversity)  are  largely  discussed  by  Patristic 
writers. 

Judaic  baptism  belongs,  exclusively,  to  baptisms  of  the 
secondary  class.  It  is  causative,  distinctively,  of  a  condi- 
tion of  ceremonial  purification.  The  diversities  which  enter 
into  it,  are  due  to  the  diverse  causes — "  dead  body,"  "  bone," 
" leprous  person,"  "market,"  &c., — inducing  defilement; 
and  the  diverse  agencies, — simple  water,  water  and  heifer 
ashes,  blood,  &c., — employed  to  remove  these  defilements; 
as  also  to  the  diverse  modes — washing,  pouring,  sprinkling 
— in  which  these  agencies  were  employed  to  develop  their 
baptizing  power. 

The  diverse  baptizings  of  the  Apostle,  and  the  diverse 
baptisms  of  the  Patrists,  are  in  the  most  absolute  accord 
with  the  diverse  baptisms  of  the  Classics.  That  the  former 
differ  in  kind  from  the  latter,  is  only  confirmatory  of  the 
diversity  of  baptisms,  and  establishes  the  statement  of  Am- 
brose, "plurima  baptismatum  genera." 

CARSON. 

That  the  "diverse  baptizings"  are  included  in  the  "carnal 
ordinances,"  (ordinances  of  the  flesh,)  is  a  matter  of  universal 
acknowledgment.  It  is  also  certain,  that  "  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
sanctifying  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,"  is  an  exposition  of 
the  "ordinances  oi'  the  Jlesh."  Now,  the  "  ordinances  of  the 
flesh"  embrace  "meats,  and  drinks,  and  diverse  baptizings;" 
and  if  "  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer,"  does  not  enter  into  "  meats  and  drinks," 
it  must  be  found  in  "diverse  baptizings." 

This,  however,  is  strenuously  objected  to  by  friends  of  the 
theory,  and,  as  usual,  with  special  vehemence  by  Dr.  Carson. 
He  says,  "the  sprinklings  under  the  law  cannot  be  included 
under  the  baptisms,  but  might  be  included  in  the  carnal 
ordinances."  True,  "the  sprinklings"  are  in  the  carnal 
ordinances,  but  only  because  "the  baptisms"  are  there. 
25 


386  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

The  sprinklings  and  the  baptizings  are  the  same  tiling  under 
diversity  of  designation.  The  sprinJdwg  expresses  the  mode 
in  which  the  agency  was  employed,  and  the  bapiizbig  indi- 
cates the  controlling  influence  attendant  upon  the  agency  so 
applied. 

Dr.  Carson  farther  asks:  "How  do  we  know  that  what 
are  here  called  'div^ers  baptisms,'  were  performed  by  sprink- 
ling and  eft'asion  ?  Can  tiiis  be  done  in  any  other  way  than 
by  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism  by  the 
usage  of  the  language?"  And  then  to  determine  this  usage, 
he  appeals  to  case  after  case  of  use,  as  far  removed  in  char- 
acter from  the  case  in  hand,  as  the  poles  are  in  distance  from 
each  other.  As  well  might  Dr.  Gale  repudiate  Carson's  plea 
for  dyeing  the  lake,  on  the  ground  that  usage  has  settled  the 
meaning  of  iSdrtru},  and  proceed,  in  vindication  of  his  position, 
to  adduce  cases  in  which  it  does,  unquestionably,  mean  to 
dip.  The  position  of  the  theorists,  now,  in  relation  to  /5arr£'ra», 
is  just  the  same  with  that  which  they  formerly  assumed  with 
respect  to  /?d-ra>.  The  same  shifts  of  "figure,"  which  are 
appealed  to  under  embarrassment,  now,  were  used,  under 
like  circumstances,  then. 

Dr.  Carson  goes  on  to  ask:  "Does  he  refer  to  the  bap- 
tisms what  was  done  with  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood? 
There  is  not  the  semblance  of  truth  for  the  assertion.  The 
Bubtilty  of  Satan  himself  cannot  plausibly  contrive  to  force 
these  sprinklings  into  the  divers  baptisms." 

Notwithstanding  the  Doctor's  opinion  as  to  what  "the 
subtilty  of  Satan  "  can  accomplish,  there  are  very  many  who 
believe  that  Paul,  without  any  such  aid,  has  quite  "plausibly 
contrived  to  force  these  sprinklings  into  the  divers  bap- 
tisms," 

But  Paul  does  not  stand  alone  in  this  achievement.  Am- 
brose has  been  no  less  successful.  This  is  his  language: 
"  Per  hyssopi  fasciculum  aspergebatur  agni  sanguine  qui 
mundari  volebat  typico  baptismatc."  (i,  875.)  "lie  who 
wished  to  be  purified  with  tyi)ical  Oapfiftm  was  sprin/dvd  with 
the  blood  of  the  lamb  by  a  bunch  of  hyssop." 

I  do  not  know  how  much  of  "subtilty"  or  "force"  there 


DIVERSE   BAPTISMS.  387 

may  be  in  this  statement,  but  I  do  know  that,  by  very  direct 
statement,  sprinklings  are  brought  into  nnity  with  baptisms. 
The  same  writer  (iii,  399)  says  again :  "  Qui  enim  baptizatur, 
et  secundum  legem  et  secundum  evangelium  videtnr  esse 
muudatus;  secundum  legem  quia  hyssopi  fasciculo  Moyses 
aspergebat  sanguinem  agni."  "For  he  who  is  baptized,  both 
according  to  the  law  and  according  to  the  gospel,  is  seen  to 
be  made  pure;  according  to  the  law,  because  Moses,  with  a 
bunch  of  hyssop,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  lamb." 

If  language  be  designed  to  express  thought,  and  not  to 
conceal  it,  then  Ambrose  has  placed,  not  "  plausibly,"  but 
absolutel}^,  "the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  lamb"  among 
the  diverse  baptizings. 

Let  us  note  the  success  of  another  in  this  same  impossible 
(according  to  the  theory)  direction. 

Josephus  (Jew.  Ant.,  iv,  4)  says  :  "  (iaizriaavreq  T£  xal  T^?  rifpaq 
TavTTj':  icq  Ttrj-pjv,  k'ppacvoy  rpirrj  xai  ijSdo/nj  rwv  ijixepibv — and  also  bap- 
tizing by  this  ashes  put  into  spring  water,  they  sprinkled  on 
the  third  and  seventh  day." 

This  embraces  the  other  sprinkling — ashes  of  the  heifer — 
mentioned  by  Paul.  Now,  with  such  help  from  Ambrose 
and  Josephus,  I  do  not  see  why  any  one  (with  subtilty  far 
less  than  that  usually  attributed  to  Satan)  might  not  be  able, 
without  force,  to  identify  these  sprinklings  with  those  "  divers 
baptizings." 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  neither  Ambrose  nor  Josephus 
confounds  sprinkling  and  baptism,  so  as  to  make  the  sprink- 
ling the  baptism  and  the  baptism  the  sprinkling.  They 
make  the  baptism  to  depend,  in  the  one  case,  on  the  influ- 
ence of  the  blood  of  the  lamb,  which  is  applied  (not  of  neces- 
sity but  of  fact)  by  sprinkling.  Li  the  other  case,  the  bap- 
tism is  effected  through  the  ashes  of  a  heifer;  the  influence 
of  which,  also,  is  developed,  in  fact,  by  the  act  of  sprinkling. 
The  blood,  the  sprinkling,  and  the  purification,  are  as  dis- 
tinct as  are  the  wine,  the  drinking,  and  the  intoxication. 

Because  the  sprinkling  is  not  a  dipping,  or  because  it  is 
not  "continued  long  enough"  to  produce  a  covering  in  blood 
or  in  ashes  and  water,  it  is  concluded  that  there  is  no  bap- 


388  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

tism.  But  such  forget  that  there  are  baptisms  Inj  influential 
agencies,  as  well  as  mersions  in  pliysical  substances. 

Sacrificial  blood,  and  emblematical  ashes  and  water,  sjprin- 
Ided  have  as  much  power  to  baptize,  as  the  intoxicating  or 
drugged  cup  drunk,  has  power  to  baptize.  If  wine  drunk, 
baptizes  (without  mersion)  into  intoxication,  the  blood  of  the 
lamb  sprinkled,  baptizes  (without  mersion)  into  purification. 

If  Satyrus  could  baptize  (without  mersion)  into  stupefac- 
tion, by  means  of  a  few  opiate  drops  mixed  with  wine,  why 
could  not  Moses  baptize  (without  mersion)  into  ceremonial 
purity,  by  means  of  a  few  drops  of  ashes  mixed  with  spring 
water  ? 

If  clean  linen  may  be  hapted  (dyed)  by  sprinIdingh]ood  upon 
it,  as  truly  as  b}'  dipping  it  into  blood,  why  may  not  aa 
unclean  man  be  baptized  (made  ceremonially  clean)  by  the 
sprinkling  of  clean  water  upon  him,  as  truly  as  by  his  being 
dipped  into  clean  water?  If  /Sa^rrw  can  lay  aside  a  dipping, 
•why  cannot  fiaTtu^io  lay  aside  a  mersion  ? 

Dr.  Carson  will  not  deny,  that  sacrificial  blood,  and  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  were  competent 
thoroughly  to  change  the  condition  of  the  ceremonially  un- 
clean, making  them  thoroughly  ceremonially  clean;  for  by 
such  denial  he  would  place  himself  in  direct  antagonism 
with  the  clearest  teachings,  and  ritual  provisions,  of  the 
word  of  God.  But  should  he  deny,  that  this  thoroughly 
controlling  influence  of  blood,  and  ashes,  over  the  condi- 
tion of  those  upon  whom  they  were  sprinkled,  can  be  justly 
termed  baptism;  then,  he  places  himself  in  antagonism  with 
the  teachings  of  all  profane  Greek  literature.  And  if  he 
denies,  that  this  influence,  controlling  condition,  is  in  fact 
called  ba[)tism;  then,  he  places  himself  in  antagonism  with 
all  Patristic  literature  which  treats  of  Jewish  purifications; 
as,  also,  with  the  Jewish  historian  who  was  personally  con- 
versant with,  and  a  participant  in  those  observances. 

The  "subtilty  of  Satan"  will  be  more  severely  taxed  to 
get  these  sprinklings  out  of  the  "  divers  baptisms,"  than  to 
force  them  into  them. 

Will  "the  theory"  venture  to  make  the  trial? 


SYMBOL   BAPTISM.  389 

'      JUDAIC  AND  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

SYMBOL   BAPTISM. 

.  .  .  ^anrcfffKO  ffuvkvai  •  ourio  yap  rr^v  ^dnzKriv  dnudexTTji'  auro)  (pavslaOai^ 
fii]  in).  Tcvcbv  d/iap-ddwv  napacTrjaei  ^pwfxivwv,  a)X  i.<p'  dyvica  zou  awixa-in;., 
are  3ij  xai  rr^^  fl'^X^/^  duaioauviQ  Tzpozx-/.s.xadapiJ.ivrfi,   .   .   . 

"For  Herod  slew  him  (John  the  Baptist),  a  good  man,  and 
exhorting  the  Jews  to  cultivate  virtue,  and  observing  upright- 
ness toward  one  another  and  piety  toward  God,  to  come  for 
baptizing  (purifying) ;  for  thus  the  baptism  would  appear  accep- 
table to  him,  not  using  it  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  for  purity 
of  the  body,  provided  that  the  soul  has  been,  previously,  purged 
by  righteousness." — Josephus,  Jew.  Ant.,  xviii,  6.  2. 

The  Latin  translation  of  this  passage  by  Valesius,  in  his 
edition  of  Eusebius  (ii,  116),  is  as  follows:  "Quippe  hunc  Ilerodes 
obtruncaverat,  cum  esset  vir  bonus,  Judaiosque  ad  virtutis  stu- 
dium  excitaret,  prsBcipiens  ut  juste  quidem  inter  se,  erga  Deum 
autem  pie  agentes,  ad  lavacrum  accederent.  Tunc  enim  demum 
acceptum  Deo  fore  lavacrum  aiebat,  cum  eo  non  ad  expiatiouem 
criminum  uterentur,  sed  ad  corporis  munditiem,  ut  mentibus 
jam  ante  per  justitiam  expurgatis,  corporis  quoque  adderent 
puritatem." 

BAPTISM   OF   JUDAISM   AND    OF   JOHN    MET   TOGETHER. 

This  quotation  shows  very  clearly  tliat  Josephus,  as  well 
as  the  Patrists  and  the  apostle,  believed  in  "divers  bap- 
tisms." This  diversity,  as  between  Judaic  and  Johannic 
baptisms,  is  made  both  distinct  and  broad.  The  one  bap- 
tism is  a  purilication  of  the  body;  the  other  is  a  purification 
of  the  soul.  In  the  one  case  the  agency  effecting  the  puri- 
fication is  water;  in  the  other  it  is  righteousness.  " Righteous- 
ness "  is  not  represented  as  an  element  within  which  the  soul, 
is  to  be  immersed;  but  the  agency  by  which  the  purified 
condition  of  the  soul  is  to  be  accomplished.  The  same  must 
be  true  of  the  water  used  in  eftecting  the  other  purified  con- 
dition, that  of  the  body.  Water,  as  ritually  used  by  the 
Jew,  was  not  used  to  remove  physical  pollution,  but  cere- 


390  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

monial.  Its  competence  for  this  duty  did  not  depend  upon 
any  natural  quality;  but  upon  a  communicated  quality  de- 
pendent upon  its  appointment  to  this  use.  In  view  of  such 
appointment  it  was  possessed  of  a  "  power,"  when  used  by 
sprinkling  or  otherwise,  to  change  the  condition  of  the  bod}', 
removing  it  out  of  ceremonial  pollution  into  ceremonial 
purity;  as  truly,  as  "righteousness"  had  power  to  change 
the  condition  of  the  soul,  removing  it  out  of  a  condition  of 
spiritual  pollution  into  a  condition  of  spiritual  purity. 

DIVERSITY. 

Josephus,  in  common  with  all  other  writers  quoted,  rep- 
resents the  water  used  in  Jewish  purifications  as  an  efficient 
agency^  and  not  as  an  element  witJdn  which  mersion  is  to  take 
place.  But  in  his  view  water  no  longer  occupies  the  posi- 
tion of  an  efficient  agency  in  John's  baptism.  John's  bap- 
tism is  of  the  soul  and  not  of  the  body.  Water  is  used  in 
this  baptism;  but  not  as  having  power  to  control  spiritual 
results. 

The  historian  still  represents  water  in  its  Jewish  aspect,  as 
having  power  to  purify  the  body;  which  becomes  a  symbol 
of,  or  complementary  to,  the  full  purification  of  the  entire 
man,  when  the  soul  is  purified  hy  "  righteousness." 

I  do  not  now  enter  upon  the  discussion  as  to  the  perfect 
correctness  of  the  view  of  John's  baptism  as  entertained  by 
Josephus.  That  will  come  up  hereafter.  It  is  enough,  in 
passing,  to  indicate  the  fact  recognized  by  him  as  to  the 
essential  difference  in  their  nature,  and  the  no  less  essential 
difference  in  the  agencies  by  which  they  were  effected. 

13ut  Josephus  could  have  no  misconception  as  to  Judaic 
baptism.  And  he  tells  us,  that  it  consisted  in  a  condition  of 
physical  ceremonial  purity  induced  by  the  ritual  agency  of  water, 
ashes,  ^c. ,  used  in  sprinkling. 

Having,  now,  passed  in  review  all  the  evidence  within  our 
reach  as  to  the  nature  of  Judaic  baptism,  together  wiih  the 
agencies  and  their  manner  of  use  in  its  accom[ilishment,  and 
having  heard  from  Jewish  lips  the  announcement  of  another 
baptism,  a  higher  and  better,  even  than  that  of  the  Fore- 


RESULTS.  391 

runner;  we  will  here  pause  to  look  back  upon  our  course 
and  gather  up  some  of  its  results,  in  order  to  our  better 
preparation  to  determine  the  question,  which  is  next  in  order, 
What  was  John's  baptism? 

EESULTS. 
Material  for  Judgment. 

1.  We  have  before  us  adequate  material  for  an  intelligent 
determination  as  to  the  distinctive  character  of  Judaic  bap- 
tism, as  well  as  for  the  confirmation  of  conclusions  previously 
reached  in  Classic  Baptism. 

The  number  of  facts  embraced  in  the  investigation  is  not 
loss  than  fifty,  and  the  number  of  times  in  which  the  Greek 
word,  in  one  form  or  another,  appears,  is  more  than  three 
times  fifty. 

The  facts  are  all  taken  from  Jewish  sources,  from  writings 
both  inspired  and  uninspired.  Ten  Jewish  writers  employ 
the  word  in  application  to  their  religious  rites  and  to  matters 
apart  from  religion. 

Christia,n  writers,  with  one  consent,  interpret  these  facts 
of  Jewish  religious  history  as  cases  of  baptism. 

The  time  embraced  by  the  usage  of  this  word  by  Jewish 
writers,  in  application  to  their  religious  rites,  extends  through 
several  centuries. 

Such  varied  and  abundant  material  leaves  nothing  to  be 
desired  for  the  intelligent  determination  of  the  meaning  of 
this  word  from  usage. 

Usage,  of  Jew  and  Greek,  harmonious. 

2.  The  usage  of  this  word  by  Jewish  writers  is  in  the  most 
perfect  accord  with  the  usage  of  Greek  Classic  writers. 

By  this  statement  I  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that  the  Jew 
uses  iia-KTi%u}  only  in  the  same  applications  as  the  Greek; 
but  I  mean  to  say,  that  whatever  application  they  make  of 
the  word,  religious  or  otherwise,  they  are  governed  by  the 
same  principles  and  in  recognition  of  the  same  fundamental 
meauinjr. 


392  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

(1.)  There  is  no  dipping  in  the  Jewish  use  of  the  word.  In 
all  the  instances  cited  from  the  writings  of  Josephus  and 
Philo,  in  the  translations  of  Sj-mmachus  and  Aquila,  in  the 
facts  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  Apocrypha,  there  is 
not  a  single  case  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  baptism  was 
by  dipping,  or  in  which  there  is  any  adequate  inferential 
evidence  to  show  that  the  baptism  was  eifected  by  the  modal 
act  of  dipping. 

Jewish  and  Greek  usage  are,  here,  at  one. 

(2.)  The  Jew  recognizes  baptisms  of  intnsposition  without 
limit  of  time  as  to  their  continuance.  These  baptisms  are 
of  two  kinds.  Those  in  which  7io  injiaence  is  exerted  over 
the  baptized  object.  As  in  the  case  of  the  sword  of  Simon 
baptized  into  his  own  body.  The  sword  exerts  a  destruc- 
tive influence,  but  no  iuflaence  is  exerted  over  the  sword 
by  its  mersion.  So,  in  the  case  of  the  axe  fallen  into  the 
Jordan.  The  iron  is  not  afiected  by  its  watery  envelop- 
ment. Those  in  which  controlling  influence  is  exerted  over  the 
baptized  object.  Such  cases  are  those  of  ships  sunk  to  the 
bottom  of  the  sea;  and  of  the  human  race  baptized  in  the 
waters  of  the  deluge.  These  baptisms  are  attended  with  in- 
fluences absolutely  controlling  in  their  power.  And,  herein, 
they  are  most  essentially  distinguished  from  the  preceding 
cases  of  baptism,  and  give  origin  to  the  secondary  usage  of 
the  word  in  which  mersion  disappears,  and  a  changed  con- 
dition stands  alone. 

(3.)  The  Jew  employs  verbal  figure  to  indicate  the  source 
and  nature  of  the  baptizing  influence,  without  demand  for, 
or  allowance  of,  intusposition. 

Thus,  Josephus  speaks  of  "  baptism  into  insensibility  and 
sleep."  This  phraseology  is  modelled  after  the  form  which 
is  expressive  of  the  introduction  of  an  object  within  a  physi- 
cal substance  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  full  influence 
of  the  enveloping  material.  Cases  of  this  character  may  be 
found  in  Classic  Baptism,  p.  266.  Objects  are  introduced, 
baptized,  "  into  the  water  {ek  rd  udwp,")  "  into  the  lake  {sk  -rij^ 

ki/iwrjv"),  "into  milk  (ei-ydXayuvauoq"),    "  iuto  the  blood  (ek  rd 

al/xa').     In  all  these  cases  there  is  intusposition  for  an  in- 


RESULTS.  393 

definitely  prolonged  time  of  the  object  within  the  water,  the 
lake,  the  milk,  and  the  blood;  and  in  all  of  these  cases  the 
intusposition  is  not  an  end,  but  a  means  to  an  end,  namely, 
to  secure  a  full  development  of  influence;  and  in  each 
case  the  influence  developed  is  peculiar.  The  pole  smeared 
with  pitch,  mersed  into  water  impregnated  with  an  aurifer- 
ous quality,  becomes  incrusted  with  gold.  Human  beings 
mersed,  in  simple  water  of  the  lake,  are  drowned.  A  medi- 
cal prescription  mersed,  in  woman's  milk,  becomes  emollient. 
A  hand  mersed,  in  the  bloody  pool  of  the  battle-field,  be- 
comes fitted  to  write,  in  gory  characters,  "  vanquished,  not 
conquered."  It  is  most  obvious,  that  there  can  be  no  inter- 
change among  these  enveloping  elements,  substituting  the 
one  for  the  other.  "  Woman's  milk"  cannot  be  substituted 
for  "  gold  impregnated  w^ith  water,"  into  which  a  pitch- 
smeared  pole  may  be  mersed  in  order  that  it  may  be  gilded. 
Nor  can  gold-water  be  substituted  for  woman's  milk,  in  order 
that  a  mersed  blister  or  pessary  may  be  made  more  sooth- 
ing. Lake-water  cannot  be  substituted  for  blood,  that  a 
hand  mersed  into  it  may  write  a  battle  record.  N^or  can  the 
crimson  flowings  of  gory  wounds  be  substituted  for  lake 
waters,  in  which  a  vanquished  host  may  be  mersed,  and 
drowned.  N^o  more  can  the  ^t?  dvaiaOriaiav  xai  unwv  of  Josephus 
(into  which  Gedaliah  was  baptized)  be  transformed  into  gold- 
water,  lake-water,  woman's  milk,  human  blood,  or  anything 
else  whatever.  There  is  as  much  of  irrationality  in  putting 
Gedaliah,  by  imagination,  into  a  water-pool,  as  there  is  in 
putting  a  pitched  pole  into  woman's  milk  to  extract  gold. 
"  Insensibility  and  sleep"  must  remain  insensUnliUj and  sleep; 
just  as  "gold-water"  must  vevn^an  gold-water ;  and  "woman's 
milk"  must  remain  woman'' s  milk. 

But  it  may  be  said,  a  man  cannot  be  put  within  "insen- 
sibility and  sleep;"  must  we  not  then  convert  (in  imagina- 
tion) these  things  into  fluids,  that  Gedaliah  may  be  put 
within  them?  I  answer,  no;  (1.)  Because  it  is  beyond  the 
power  of  imagination  to  convert  "  insensibility"  or  "sleep" 
into  distinctive  fluids.  (2.)  To  imagine  them  to  be  fluids 
without  a  distinctive  character,  would  be  as  irrational  as  to 


394  JUDAIC   BAPTISM. 

confound  gold-water  and  woman's  milk.  (3.)  To  put  Geda- 
liali  within  any  fluid  would  never  answer  Josephus's  purpose; 
but  would  put  him  into  that  sleep  "which  knows  no  wak- 
ing." 

Josephus  never  meant  to  put  the  imagination  under  bonds 
to  accomplish  the  impossible  absurdity  of  putting  a  man 
within  a  liquefied  insensibility  and  sleep;  nor  yet  the  im- 
possible conception  of  putting  bim  within  them  under  any 
condition. 

Is  it  asked,  "  Why  then  does  Josephus  use  the  phraseolog}', 
'  baptized  into  insensibility  and  sleep '  ?  "  I  answer,  because  he 
means  to  express  a  condition  characterized  by  the  controlling 
influences  of  "  insensibility  and  sleep."  For  this  purpose  he 
conjoins  these  things  with  f:ia-Ti%w  ek;  phraseology  used  in 
physics  to  secure  the  development  of  any  distinctive  influ- 
ence belonging  to  its  adjunct.  Thus  ^a-rilut  el<;  with  gold- 
water,  with  lake-water,  with  woman's  milk,  with  human 
blood,  indicates  the  full  influence  distinctively  attaching  to 
these  several  elements  over  an  object  nursed  in  them  for  an 
indefinitely  prolonged  period.  And  when  conjoined  with 
"  insensibility  and  sleep,"  it  denotes  the  full  influence  dis- 
tinctively belonging  to  these  elements  over  the  object  brought 
tcithin  their  control,  not  by  mersion  within  them,  (for  this  is 
impossible  whether  of  reality  or  of  imagination,)  but  in  that 
way  which  is  appropriate  to  the  case,  and  which  is  expressly 
stated  by  Josephus,  namely,  by  excessive  wine-drinking. 

The  office,  then,  of  the  phrase  /JaTrrctw  ^t?,  is  to  conduct  us, 
in  thought,  to  those  cases  where  influence  is  sought  as  the 
end,  and  mersion  is  used  as  the  means;  while  its  adjunct, 
"insensibility  and  sleep,"  teaches  us  that  the  end  only  is  to 
be  retained,  and  the  form  for  securing  that  end  is  to  be  re- 
jected as  unsuited  to  the  case. 

In  all  this,  the  Jew  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  Greek. 
It  has  been  abundantly  shown  in  Classic  Baptism,  that  con- 
dition resultant  from  controlling  influence,  and  secured  with- 
out mersion,  was  placed,  without  hesitation  or  discrimina- 
tion, among  baptisms.  Josephus  exhibits  this  truth  in  the 
clearest  and  strongest  manner,  by  using  the  complete  phrase- 


RESULTS.  395 

ology  of  verbal  figure.  The  hand  is  bapted,  not  by  clipping, 
(the  mode  la  rejected,)  but  by  pressing  a  berry;  the  body  and 
the  mind  are  baptized,  not  by  mersion,  (the  mode  is  rejected,) 
but  by  drinking  wine. 

(4.)  The  Jew  employs  this  Greek  word,  like  Classic  writers, 
absolutely,  and  appropriatedly,  to  denote  a  specific  baptism. 

The  Greeks  thus  used  it  to  express  a  condition  of  drunk- 
enness; the  Jew  used  it,  on  the  same  principles,  to  express 
a  condition  of  ceremonial  religious  purity.  There  was  the 
same  right  to  appropriate  to  the  one  use  or  the  other.  Alien 
as  is  drunkenness  from  purity,  the  word,  in  itself,  was  equally 
susceptible  of  application  in  the  one  direction  or  the  other. 
The  baptism  of  the  god  Bacchus  (C.  B.,  p.  324),  and  of  the 
demi-god  Silenus  (p.  330),  was  etiected  by  drinking,  and  not 
by  mersion.  The  baptism  of  Jehovah  was  effected  by  sprink- 
ling ashes,  blood,  and  water,  and  not  by  mersion.  This  bap- 
tism was,  by  eminence,  Judaic  baptism. 

Jewish  Baptisms  not  Dippings. 

3.  Jewish  baptisms  were  effected  generally  neither  by 
dippings  nor  by  envelopings,  but  by  influential  agencies, 
variously  applied,  usually  by  sprinkling. 

This  fact  stands  out  in  the  boldest  relief,  and  governs  the 
whole  course  of  Patristic  interpretation.  This  development 
is  only  a  repetition  of  that  in  Classic  Baptism.  There,  in 
score  after  score  of  baptisms,  there  is  not  one  word  said  of 
dipping  or  of  envelopment.  ^N'othing  appears  but  an  influ- 
ential agency,  changing  the  condition,  after  its  own  nature, 
and  thus  effecting  a  baptism. 

The  Classics  recognized  a  "power"  in  wine,  and  in  a  drug, 
and  in  a  thousand  other  things,  to  baptize.  They  speak  of 
water  impregnated  with  a  quality — '■Hncerto  medicamine" — 
by  which  it  was  able  to  change  the  condition  of  those  com- 
ing in  contact  with  it,  just  as  Bethesda's  water  received  a 
"  quality,"  by  which  it  was  able  to  change  the  condition  of 
those  coming  under  its  power. 

Let  it  be  pointedly  noted,  that  it  was  not  the  fluid,  as  such, 


396  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

which  effected  the  baptism,  but  a  foreign  "  qiialit}',"  im- 
parted to  it,  whose  "power"  to  baptize  was  not  restricted 
to  any  modal  use. 

While  the  Classics  use  one  class  of  agencies  to  effect  their 
baptisms,  the  Jews  use  those  of  a  different  character  to  effect 
their  distinctive  baptism.  The  ashes  of  a  red  heifer,  sacri- 
ficial blood,  and  living  water,  have,  with  them,  a  power  to 
baptize  (to  change  the  ceremonial  condition  from  defilement 
to  purity),  so  as  other  ashes,  blood,  or  water,  have  not.  This 
shows,  demonstrably,  that  the  baptism  does  not  consist  in  a 
dipping,  or  in  an  envelopment,  but  in  an  effect  produced. 
The  Patrists,  in  like  manner,  make  the  baptism  to  depend 
not  on  the  receptivity  of  the  element,  but  on  a  "  vis,"  or 
"  qualitas,"  not  inherent  in  it  and  not  dependent  on  any 
modal  use  of  it,  for  its  development.  A  coal  of  fire,  or  a 
flaming  sword,  therefore,  can  baptize  as  readily  and  as  legiti- 
mately, as  any  or  as  any  amount  of  fluid  element. 

A  Jew,  ritualhj  sprinkled  by  ashes,  (to  which,  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, was  communicated  a  power  to  cleanse  from  cere- 
monial defilement,)  was  as  truly  baptized,  as  was  Aristobulus 
drowned  in  the  fish-pool. 

The  evidence  is  overwhelming,  in  support  of  the  posi- 
tion, that  Jewish  baptisms  were  effected  by  influential  agencies, 
usually,  developing  their  iwwer  over  the  object  baptized  by  the  act 

of  SPRINKLING. 

The  Theorists  made  Apologists. 

4.  The  facts  of  these  Jewish  baptisms,  and  their  inter- 
pretation by  most  learned  Grecians,  force  the  theorists  into 
an  unvarying  apologetic  attitude. 

Any  one  who  has  passed  over  the  course  through  which 
we  have  been  led,  by  Jew  and  Patrist,  must  profoundly  feel, 
that  nowhere  along  the  route  is  aid  or  comfort  to  be  found 
for  the  theory  which  ascribes  to  fia—i'^w  "one  meaning,  dip, 
and  nothing  but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature." 

In  the  baptism  of  the  sword,  mersed  into  JSimon's  body, 
there  is  no  dipping.     In  the  baptism  of  the  ship,  sunk  into 


RESULTS.  397 

the  sea,  there  is  no  dipping.  In  the  baptism  of  Aristobulus, 
drowned  by  the  Galatians,  there  is  no  dipping.  In  the  bap- 
tism of  the  human  race  in  the  dekige  waters,  there  is  no 
dipping.  In  the  baptisms  by  washing,  by  sprinkling,  and 
by  pouring,  there  is  no  dipping.  In  the  baptism  hy  the 
waving  s-word,  and  by  the  touch  of  the  coal  of  fire,  there  is 
no  dipping.  In  the  baptism  by  suffering,  and  terror,  there 
is  no  dipping. 

Everywhere  the  theory  is  called  upon  to  apologize  for  the 
absence  of  "  the  only  meaning,"  and  to  construct,  by  some 
extravagance  of  rhetoric  or  imagination,  a  grotesque  substi- 
tute for  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  confidently  appeal  to  the  theorist 
himself,  who  may  think  our  view  to  be  but  a  counterfeit  of 
the  truth,  and  ask  him.  Whether  counterfeit  was  ever  more 
like  the  truth  ?  Whether  the  truth  itself  ever  met  more 
squarely  every  fact,  resolved  every  difficulty,  and  moved  on 
more  harmoniously  with  the  laws  of  language  ? 

If  the  theory  is  to  be  sustained,  it  must  be  on  some  other 
ground  than  that  which  is  covered  by  Judaic  baptism.  Here, 
there  is  but  repudiation  of  its  postulations,  and  a  deaf  ear 
for  its  apologies. 

Classic  Baptism  Coiijirmed. 

5.  The  farther  investigation,  now  instituted,  confirms  the 
conclusion  reached  in  Classic  Baptism,  that  condition  of  in- 
tusposition  involving  complete  infiuence,  and  not  modal  act, 
is  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  word;  while  it  advances  to  a 
secondary  use,  in  which  intusposition  (as  the  form  by  which 
the  influence  is  effected)  is  lost,  and  influence,  in  whatsoever 
way  operative,  (if  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  con- 
dition of  its  object  and  subjecting  it  to  itself,)  takes  the 
place  of  intusposition. 

The  illustrations  vindicating  these  positions  furnished  by 
Judaic  Ba[)tism,  are,  if  possible,  more  explicit  and  more 
utterly  concluding  reply,  than  those  found  in  Classic  Bap- 
tism.    What  can  be  more  out  of  the  reach  of  all  rational 


398  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

opposition,  than  the  baptism  by  tlie  Bpriiikling  of  heifer 
ashes,  as  announced  by  Josephus?  or  by  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  the  lamb,  as  declared  by  Ambrose  ?  What 
should  be  more  conclusive  of  all  controversy  as  to  a  dipping 
or  an  envelopment  being  essential  to  a  baptism,  than  a  bap- 
tism effected  by  the  waving  of  a  fiamwg  sicord,  or  by  the  pour- 
ing of  icatcr  upon  an  altar,  or  the  baptism  of  sin  itself? 

I  cannot  venture  to  believe  that  these  conclusions  will  be 
accepted  by  the  present  friends  of  the  theory;  but  I  do  dare 
to  believe  that  there  is  such  a  self-evidencing  power  in  truth, 
that  those  who  come  after  them,  with  minds  less  preoccupied 
with  mistaken  conceptions,  will  accept  them  as  truths  from 
which  there  is  no  escape,  and  from  which,  I  am  happy  to  be- 
lieve, they  will  not  wush  to  escape. 

Apjn'opriaiion —  Ceremonial  Purification. 

6.  Finally,  in  connection  with  Jewish  ritual  purifications, 
^aTzriXui  secures  the  meaning  to  imrify  ceremoniaUg. 

Whether,  in  other  relations,  it  ever  expresses  a  purification 
broader  and  higher  than  that  which  is  merely  ceremonial, 
is  not  now  a  question.  Dr.  Edward  Williams,  more  than  a 
century  since,  and  President  Beecher  and  Professor  Godwin, 
more  recently,  have  argued  with  eminent  ability  and  accom- 
plished scholarship,  to  show  that  this  word  means  to  inirifg. 
They  failed  to  establish,  fully,  their  views  in  the  minds  of 
thoughtful  persons,  not  because  there  was  not  great  and  evi- 
dent truth  in  many  of  their  positions,  but  because  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  w^ord  not  having  been  clearly  traced  out, 
and  the  development  of  this  specific  meaning  thence  de- 
duced, the  truth,  while  seen,  was  not  seen  without  a  pen- 
umbra, and  its  boundaries  not  always  accurately  indicated. 
They,  conserpiently,  put  in  claim  for  this  meaning,  in  some 
cases  where  such  claim  could  not  be  satisfactorily  estab- 
lished, and  thus  threw  doubt  over  those  claims  which  were 
well  grounded.  If  I  were  to  say,  [iamiXo)  means  to  make 
drunic,  and  then  were  to  apply  this  meaning  to  all  cases  of 
stupefaction^  au  opponent,  who  should  show  that  some  par- 


RESULTS.  399 

ticular  case  of  stupefaction  was  produced,  not  by  an  intoxi- 
cant, but  by  an  opiate,  might  shake  confidence,  not  merely 
in  that  particular  application,  but  in  the  general  position. 

It  is  essential,  to  intelligent  conviction,  that  the  origin  of 
meanings  claimed,  should  be  clearly  traced,  and  the  limits 
of  their  dominion  be  rightfully  defined.  When  this  is  done, 
conviction  of  the  truth  sooner  or  later  is  sure  to  follow.  In 
claiming  that  this  v^^ord  means  "to  purify  ceremonially,"  we 
acknowledge  our  obligation  to  show  how  this  meaning  may 
originate  under  the  laws  of  language,  and  to  show  its  actual 
development  by  facts  of  usage.  This  obligation  we  have  at- 
tempted to  meet. 

Ko  one  questions,  but  that  a  sentence  of  many  words,  each 
with  a  distinct  thought,  may  be  absorbed  by  some  single 
word  of  such  sentence,  which  word  will  express  a  thought 
the  result  of  the  whole.  Thus :  "  lie  drinks  intoxicating 
liquor  until  he  becomes  drunk,"  is  abbreviated  into,  "He 
drinks  intoxicating  liquor;"  and  then  into,  "He  drinks;" 
when  "drinks"  has  absorbed  the  entire  sentence,  and  ex- 
presses the  resultant  condensed  thought  of  the  whole,  viz.: 
"  He  gets  drunk." 

And  when  I  say  of  one:  "He  is  like  a  drinking  man;" 
drinking  does  not  express  the  act  of  SAvallowing  a  liquid,  but 
the  condition  of  a  man  who  is  in  the  habit  of  getting  drunk. 
A  new  meaning  has  been  secured  for  the  word.  So  in  the 
sentence,  "Baptized  by  wine  into  drunkenness,"  abbrevia- 
tion drops  "into  drunkenness,"  and  then  "by  wine;"  while 
"baptized"  remains  the  sole  representative  of  the  whole, 
and  expresses  the  entire  resultant  thought.  Thus:  "I  am 
one  of  those  baptized^''  (C.  B.,  p.  317,)  means,  "I  am  one  of 
those  made  drunk.''  And,  "  He  is  like  one  baptized,''  (C.  B., 
p.  330,)  means,  "  He  is  like  one  made  drunk."  The  word 
has  secured  a  new  meaning. 

Under  precisely  the  same  conditions  of  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage and  the  facts  of  usage,  frequent  in  occurrence,  and 
reaching  through  centuries  of  continuance,  ^ar.zl'^u)  secures 
the  meaning  to  purify  ceremoniallg. 

No  theorist  can  deny  the  fitness  of  the  language,  "Bap- 


400  JUDAIC    BAPTISM. 

tizod  hy  heifer  nsliGS,  by  sacrificial  Llood,  by  living  water, 
into  ceremonial  purity."  Neither  can  he  deny  the  lawful 
abbreviation,  "baptized  by  heifer  ashes,"  or  that  of  the 
single  word,  "baptized;"  which  word  shall  embody,  withia 
itself,  the  one  thought  which  is  the  joint  product  of  the 
several  parts  of  the  sentence,  to  wit,  made  ceremoniaUy  pure. 
And  when  Josephiis  speaks  of  "  baptizing  by  heifer  ashes," 
be  speaks  of  making  ceremonially  pure  by  this  agency.  And 
when  the  Son  of  Sirach  speaks  of  one  ^^  baptized  from  the 
dead,"  he  speaks  of  one  made  ceremonially  pure.  And  when, 
two.  centuries  afterward,  the  Jew  wondered  that  the  Sa- 
viour did  not  "first  baptize  before  eating,"  he  expressed  his 
wonder  that  he  did  not  ceremonially  purify  himself.  Such 
had  become  the  direct  meaning  of  the  word,  as  shown  by 
its  absolute  use,  for  centuries,  in  connection  with  ritual 
purifications. 

The  conclusion,  then,  of  our  inquiry  is  this : 
Judaic  Baptism  is  a  condition  of  Ceremonial  Purification 
effected  by  the  washing  of  the  hands  or  feet,  by  the  sprinkling 
of  sacrificial  blood  or  heifer  ashes,  by  the  pouring  upon  of  water, 
by  the  touch  of  a  coal  of  fire,  by  the  waving  of  a  flaming  sword, 
and  by  divers  other  modes  and  agencies,  dependent,  in  no  wise,  on 
any  form  of  act  or  on  the  covering  of  the  object. 

"With  such  evidence,  deduced  from  language  development, 
sustaining  the  previous  conclusion  of  Classic  Baptism,  that 
the  word  makes  demand  for  a  condition  and  not  for  a  modal 
act;  and  with  such  varied,  explicit,  and  authoritative  evi- 
dence sustaining  the  present  conclusion  of  Judaic  Baptism, 
that  the  word  makes  demand  for  a  condition  of  ceremonial 
purity;  any  attempt  to  overthrow  these  conclusions  can  have 
l)ut  little  happier  issue  than  an  attempt  to  overturn  this  solid 
globe  of  ours,  while  no  answer  comes  to  the  despairing  cry — 

"  jo^"  mi  nor  im." 


dia£ih 

■■• 

Date  Due 

^iW,-t- 

>ilB|"«iii«iwi, 

■-'€  '■  r    ■; 

IPIiiN 

^p 

r         ,■  .  ■  ■ 

1 

r-' 

1 

l\<,        -:,     ■ 

^1 

;:p  -    •■- 

.:'■    :'■   "^ 

i. 

^u  1  '   "' 

JI^^P"***"^ 

^fi   ■ 

iBlWWP''^ 

^M*.-^. 

— r 

1 

r 

m 


